Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Economic Community

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on recent negotiations towards seeking entry to the European Economic Community.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations to join the Common Market.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon):: I hope

to make a statement on last week's negotiating meetings in Brussels later today.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made in the European Economic Community negotiations towards the protection of British inshore fishing interests.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in clarifying the position of fisheries in negotiations for entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Rippon: Exploratory contacts, without prejudice to our position generally on the common fisheries policy of the Community, have continued with the Commission of the European Economic Community. Pending completion of the examination of the implications of this policy, Her Majesty's Government continue to reserve their position.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the House is getting tired of these rather vague answers? Can he give now a specific assurance that the Government will not sign on the dotted line before we get adequate safeguards for our inshore fishing fleet?

Mr. Rippon: We shall certainly raise this matter at the appropriate time in the negotiations. One difficulty is that certain details of the policy have not yet even been settled by the Community itself. There is a need for clarification on quite a number of matters. The hon. Gentleman can be quite satisfied that this is not a matter which will go by default.

Sir F. Bennett: Is not the position exactly the same as indicated in the answers given by the Minister to several recent Questions from both sides of the House; namely, that in regard to any agreements reached before our possible entry to the Common Market Her Majesty's Government reserve their position absolutely both in regard to conservation and otherwise?

Mr. Rippon: Sometimes people say that these negotiations are going too quickly and urge us to be careful. We have to get the right solutions and to


negotiate in a fair and reasonable way. Regarding the fisheries regulations, I assure the House that we have made it perfectly clear that, as far as we can now judge, they would be detrimental to our interests, and these matters must be taken up before we enter the Community.

Mr. Healey: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last remark mean that he agrees with the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the common fisheries policy, as at present defined, would be quite unacceptable to the British people and Her Majesty's Government? Further, does he expect to reach a solution on this problem before the Summer Recess, or is it likely to take until rather later in the year?

Mr. Rippon: I should not like to give any guarantee about the timing of it. Certainly it has to be done. I have never gone beyond saying that we would break the back of the negotiations by the end of the summer. There will be some matters still to be cleared up. This is one of them. I have represented very strongly to the Community, as have the other applicants, that a fisheries policy which may have been quite appropriate for the Community of Six is not appropriate for a Community of Ten in which the new applicants would represent 60 per cent. of the fishing interests.

Mr. Evelyn King: I fully understand the impossibility of my right hon. and learned Friend answering the sort of questions which he has just been asked, but would he bear in mind that in Dorset, and probably in all the coastal regions of England, there is alarm and apprehension about this aspect of the policy, possibly exceeding that about any other question in the negotiations?

Mr. Rippon: The point is that on many of these matters of negotiation a lot of people are affected, and we deal with matters, first with one and then with another, to try to obtain a fair and reasonable settlement. I have no doubt of the strength of feelings on this matter.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-

wealth Affairs when he now expects to have completed the main body of negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: There is an evident desire on the part of the Community to carry the negotiations forward rapidly. There will be a further ministerial negotiating meeting on 7th June. In the present climate I remain confident that we shall complete the main body of the negotiations by the summer.

Mr. Gummer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the great satisfaction felt by many of us at the progress of the talks? Would he not agree that the major issue now outstanding on which progress has not been made is that of New Zealand, and will he make every effort to provide for New Zealand the same kind of help as he has promised to provide? Will he ensure that those who believe that we would leave New Zealand in the lurch will be proved wrong?

Mr. Rippon: I think that we can say, "So far, so good." But there remain a number of important issues still to be settled. I have always resisted trying to have a list of priorities among all the matters to be raised. In the House, in the country or in the Community I think that no one doubts how strongly we feel about the need to provide adequate protection for New Zealand dairy products.

Mr. Healey: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is the unanimous view on this side of the House, shared, I believe, by many hon. Members of the Conservative Party, that there should be adequate time for consideration of the terms when they are finally revealed, and that it would be quite improper for the Government to seek a decision of the House until several months have elapsed after the publication of the terms?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that there has ever been any dispute about that. I hope that fairly shortly we shall be able to assess the main body of the terms, and, therefore, we shall be able to assess the situation as it then is. It will be some time before the question of actually signing a document of accession can arise. It would not be before the end of the year.

Mr. Healey: It is a question not of signing a document, which is a matter for Her Majesty's Government in the last resort, but of when the House is asked to pronounce on the package as a whole. My point—and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can satisfy us on this matter—is that there should be a period of many weeks, even of some months, between the final publication of the terms and the Government requiring the House to take a decision on whether they should be accepted.

Mr. Rippon: Certainly there will have to be adequate time after the publication of the terms before the House is asked to pass a judgment. That is only fair and reasonable.

Mr. Marten: My right hon. and learned Friend has twice referred to the "main body" of the negotiations. Does he include horticulture and fishing as items in the main body?

Mr. Rippon: As my hon. Friend will see, we have made some progress regarding horticulture in the last round of ministerial meetings. I have said that we shall have to bring up the fisheries question at the appropriate time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to judge in a few weeks how far we have got.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Norwegian Government with a view to establishing a common British and Norwegian negotiating position towards the common fisheries policy of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: We have had contacts with the Norwegian Government on matters of mutual interest arising out of the European Economic Community common fisheries policy generally.

Mr. Strang: Do the proposals put forward by the Norwegian Government for the modification of the common fisheries policy have the support of the British Government? Does the speech made by the Foreign Secretary at Aberdeen on Friday mean that the Government will not seek to take Britain into

the Common Market without first securing a modification of the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Rippon: We are in contact with the Norwegian Government about their proposals. I do not think that their proposals would be in every respect the same as ours. I am going to Norway next week, and I am sure that this is one of the matters which we shall discuss. As I think I have made perfectly clear, we regard the fisheries regulation as raising very great difficulties for us as it now stands. We have reserved our position, and we shall certainly be dealing with this matter before the question of entering arises.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not absolutely clear from my right hon. and learned Friend's replies to this and previous Questions that the position of Her Majesty's Government is that they will use all their powers of persuasion, diplomacy, and so on, to protect the position of Britain's fishing interests?

Mr. Rippon: We shall use those powers, and I am sure that we shall use them to the necessary effect.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Norway not only is the largest fishing nation in Western Europe but was the only nation not to sign the 1964 Fisheries Convention? She now states that she will not sign the Fisheries Convention of the Common Market. Do we intend to go with her in this matter?

Mr. Rippon: We are in contact with the Norwegian Government, which are responsible for their own policy and their own application. We keep very closely in touch.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the future of the Sterling Area in the event of a successful conclusion of Her Majesty's Government's negotiations to enter the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: I have nothing to add at present to what I said in the debate on 21st January and in answer to Questions on 22nd March and 26th April.—[Vol.


809, c. 1405–6; Vol. 814, c. 6–8; Vol. 816, c. 9 and 13.]

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a categorical assurance that in the course of the negotiations he will not agree to any restriction on our freedom to invest in Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Rippon: We have said that we are prepared to have discussions about the whole range of these matters and then we can see what will emerge. I do not think that I can deal in detail with many of the points raised by my right hon. Friend, which are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall not go beyond what I said on 21st January, and I certainly cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the House on a number of occasions.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that it is plainly incompatible to have a free movement of capital within the sterling area and also a free movement of capital within an enlarged European Economic Community. If he cannot go beyond his brief, will he at least make it clear that he rejects the French proposal that we should start repaying the sterling balances at the rate of 5 per cent. a year?

Mr. Rippon: I think that the French proposals in negotiations which are confidential have received many interpretations. Discussions are proceeding at what we consider to be the appropriate place and in the appropriate way. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said about them. We have said all along that we have no objection to having fairly wide ranging discussions about the future rôle of sterling, what might happen to its reserve role, and what might happen to the sterling balances. All those are matters for discussion. Before any arrangements were made, the House would have to be informed. We are at a very preliminary stage. As to the negotiations, we are dealing with the harmonisation of capital, and we have proposals as to how that can be dealt with in the transitional period, but we have not yet reached agreement about it.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state in£million sterling total European Economic Community expenditure on the agricultural fund in 1966–67 compared with 1970–71, the annual rate of increase in this expenditure and the percentage proportions spent on the guarantee and guidance sections respectively for the five-year period; and what increase in guidance section expenditure has been authorised under the Mansholt Plan.

Mr. Rippon: I am arranging for the statistics called for in answer to the first part of the Question to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
With regard to the last part of the Question, the price increases and structural changes approved by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community do not amount to approval of what is know as the Mansholt Plan. No decision has been taken to increase expenditure under the guidance section of the European Economic Community agricultural guarantee and guidance fund above the limit of£119 million which has obtained since 1969.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I suspect that the figures will reveal a five-fold increase in open-ended expenditure, which is surely preposterously expensive in relation to the achievements of the common agricultural policy in disrupting world food markets and ossifying European agriculture in its present pattern. If the Mansholt Plan leads to larger farm units and greater efficiency, will it not also lead to an increase in surpluses? So why has my right hon. and learned Friend agreed to this policy, and to destroying the present balance of British agriculture between livestock and cropping, without making progressive dismantlement of this policy as at present conceived at least as live an issue as the future of sterling?

Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend has asked me for some statistics, with which I have provided him. When he sees the statistics, he will see that he is right in saying that the expenditure has increased, for a number of reasons—because the Community has extended the coverage of the C.A.P. gradually and because it is spending more to reduce the surpluses of which my hon. Friend complains.

Following are the statistics:

Definitive expenditure figures from the Agricultural Fund are not available after 1965–66. The figures below relate to the budget years 1967 to 1971.

BUDGETS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUND 1967–71


£ million



Budget Year



1967
1968
1969
1970†
1971


Expenditure relating to.
1966–67
1967–68
1968–69
July-December, 1969
1970
1971


Guarantee Section
123·3*
547·1
831·6
647·7
984·6
977·7


Guidance Section
44·1*
118·8
118·8
59·4
118·8
188·8


Expenditure relating to.
1967
1968
1969

1970
1971


Special Sections
—
86·8
58·5
—
28·9
—


Total Expenditure
176·4*
752·7
1,008·9
707·1
1,132·3
1,069·5


* Converted from units of accounts at the rate of£=2·80 U.A. All other conversions at£=2·40 U.A.


† In order to change the budget to a calendar year basis 1970 includes expenditure for 18 months for the Guarantee and Guidance Sections.

The increase in annual expenditure from the Agricultural Fund from 1967 to 1971 is +265·7 per cent., +34·0 per cent., +12·2 per cent. (this relates to the increase in only 12 months' expenditure attributable to 1970) and -3·2 per cent. respectively. These percentages have been calculated from the original figures in units of account.

The proportions of expenditure from the various sections of the Agricultural Fund are shown below.

Per cent.





1967
1968
1969
1970
1971


Guarantee Section
…
…
75·0
72·7
82·4
88·7
89·2


Guidance Section
…
…
25·0
15·8
11·8
9·7
10·8


Special Sections
…
…
—
11·5
5·8
16
—


The foregoing percentages must be regarded as approximate as they are based on comparisons of expenditure from different sections of the fund for periods which are not identical.

Sir R. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he made, when formulating his proposal to the Six for the phasing-out of Australia from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement during the transitional period, of the effect his proposal would have on the export quotas of other countries, in particular developing countries, in view of Article 34 of the International Sugar Agreement.

Miss Joan Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions and conclusions have taken place concerning the importation into the United Kingdom of Australian sugar during the European Economic Community talks.

Mr. Rippon: The Community has agreed that we may continue to meet our obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to Commonwealth countries, including Australia, until the expiration of the Agreement at the end of 1974. Thereafter we have asked that the Australian sugar quota to our market

should be phased out gradually over the remainder of the transitional period.

Sir R. Russell: My right hon. and learned Friend has not answered my Question. Will he make an answer as to the effect on the International Sugar Agreement of phasing out Australia? If Article 34 has to be implemented, will it not cut down the quotas of the developing countries under the International Sugar Agreement and also reduce the supply of cane sugar to our refineries?

Mr. Rippon: As I have already explained, we have completely safeguarded the position until the end of 1974. The International Sugar Agreement comes to an end in 1973. Therefore, the application of Article 34 does not arise.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain why Queensland sugar should be phased out at all?

Mr. Rippon: Our purpose is basically to safeguard the interests of the developing countries of the Commonwealth for


the longer term within the framework which we are now negotiating.

Mr. J. T. Price: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has so far failed to give any clear answers to the many Questions tabled on this matter, will he make a genuine attempt when he is next at the Dispatch Box to give some indication that he is prepared to defend vital British interests in these negotiations and not act like a weak limpet and give away all our vital interests to our trading competitors in Europe?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Sir J. Gilmour: Would my right hon. and learned Friend say whether, in phasing out Australian sugar, it is intended that this should be replaced by sugar grown in Great Britain or elsewhere in Europe?

Mr. Rippon: I shall be having something to say in my statement later which will be relevant to this. Certainly I would assume that there will be room for expansion of our sugar beet production.

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost to date of distributing through the Post Office fact sheets on the Common Market.

Mr. Rippon: The Post Office does not make a charge for distributing the leaflets within its own organisation or for issuing them to the public. Its facilities for doing so are, of course, limited.

Mr. Bell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it right to use the Post Office for this sort of tendentious pamphleteering, and, if he does, will he make funds available for a series of pamphlets, equally impartial, from the other standpoint, which I shall be happy to draft for him?

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his offer of help. What we are doing is to put in a convenient form the facts for which the public is asking.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As the Post Office is now supposed to be working on a profit-making basis, is it not the case that every person who contributes to the operation of the Post Office is paying for

this distribution whether he likes it or not? Why should the Post Office charge people—when the overwhelming majority are against going into the Common Market—for twisted propaganda in favour of entry?

Mr. Rippon: I do not accept the last assertion. The rest of the question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: When my right hon. and learned Friend uses the expression "in a convenient form" to whom is it convenient and for what purpose?

Mr. Rippon: It is convenient for those who read it.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he now has to meet his opposite numbers in the Six other than informal meetings with the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Rippon: I am not in a position to announce any plans between now and the next ministerial negotiating meeting on 7th June. But I shall certainly be meeting representatives of Governments of the Six.

Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whereas it would be a mistake to import into the negotiations matters which are not directly relevant to them, since the object of the negotiations is to achieve an end which goes beyond the negotiations, there would be every advantage in seeking to maintain or, indeed, to extend the discussions with his opposite numbers on military, political and financial matters?

Mr. Rippon: The discussions can be fairly wide-ranging about the future. What I am concerned to do is to get on with the matters which are within my province at the negotiating table in Brussels.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his proposals for the United Kingdom percentage contribution to the European Economic Community Budget were based on the assumption of a 10-nation European Economic Community; and what alteration would be needed in


his proposals in the event of Denmark and Norway not joining the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes", and to the second part "None".

Mr. Deakins: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm, therefore, that in the event of Britain entering a Community of seven, eight, nine or ten nations, no alteration would be needed in the proposals he has put before the Community as a compromise on this issue?

Mr. Rippon: That is correct.

Mr. Hayhoe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a highly pessimistic interpretation of the present state of the negotiations to say that there is no real likelihood of the Scandinavian countries, Norway and Denmark, joining if we join?

Mr. Rippon: I think that that is probably a correct assessment of the situation.

Mr. Marten: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that both Norway and Denmark, and indeed Ireland, are to have a referendum? If the people in those countries turn down the Common Market, those countries will not go in. Why are they less democratic than we are?

Mr. Rippon: They are not less democratic. They have their own constitutional procedures, we have ours, and we shall hold to ours.

Mr. Hayhoe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the European Economic Community negotiations to agree on satisfactory arrangements to safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth Caribbean sugar producers.

Mr. Rippon: I shall be covering fully the progress in the negotiations on Commonwealth sugar in my statement later this afternoon.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the question of

New Zealand's exports of agricultural exports was discussed at the most recent meeting in Brussels on Great Britain's proposed entry to the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: There was no statement from the Community at the meeting on 11th and 12th May, but I raised this matter and reminded the Community of the nature of New Zealand's special problems and of the need to find a suitable solution to them.

Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that even among those of us who most welcome the progress of the last week there is an intense desire to make sure that we do everything possible for our New Zealand friends?

Mr. Rippon: I quite agree.

Mr. Peart: In view of the recent reply of the French President to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that there can be no sell-out on this issue? New Zealand has supplied the British market for many years and her economy is geared to this country. That is, I think, recognised on both sides of the House. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remain firm on this issue when he negotiates.

Mr. Rippon: There can be no sell-out on this or anything else.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Following my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to me after he made his previous statement, can he confirm that it is his intention to negotiate for permanent entry of New Zealand dairy produce prior to, and as a precondition of, British entry?

Mr. Rippon: We have never promised anybody a permanent solution for anything. We have said that there must be continuous arrangements subject to an appropriate review.

Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that as New Zealand stood by us from the other side of the world in two world wars, no advantage to us personally or as a country would be worth letting her down and letting down the economy which she has constructed to fit in with our requirements?

Mr. Rippon: I have not lost a single opportunity to make clear to the Community how strongly we feel about this matter and how essential it is that there should be adequate safeguards for New Zealand and that, in saying this, we are seeking to defend not British interests but the interests of New Zealing.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noticed the recent debate in the Council of Europe at Strasbourg on this matter in which representatives of both major parties in Britain expressed the view that merely transitional arrangements would not be sufficient and delegates from the continental countries expressed their good will towards and understanding of New Zealand's position?

Mr. Rippon: I am glad that both delegations have made the position clear. That is also the British Government's position. I am also quite clear that there is growing understanding in the Community of what this means and how necessary it is to find the right solution.

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the different trading patterns of Scotland and England in the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: The negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community take fully into account the interests of all regions of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Scottish exports to the E.E.C. are less than one-half of England's and that the opposite situation exists with regard to exports to E.F.T.A.? Would he not, therefore, regard it as irrational as well as unjust that he should negotiate on behalf of the two countries, and would he arrange for separate Scottish representation under the terms of our Treaty?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think there will be any need for such separate Scottish representation.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs under what circumstances overseas workers will be accepted as community workers within the European Economic Community in the event of Great Britain joining.

Mr. Rippon: I would refer the hon. Lady to the Answer given to her on 14th May.—[Vol. 817, c. 177.]

Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind the length of time in which some of us have tried to get this position clarified, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm whether or not Commonwealth immigrant workers in this country will have to become citizens of Britain before they are acceptable as community workers within E.E.C. in the event of Britain joining?

Mr. Rippon: As I said, all these matters are being clarified in discussion in the Community. I recognise that there are a great many anxieties about this, which we shall have to clear up. The negotiations are lengthy, and they are complicated; I am afraid that we can take only one matter at a time.

Mr. Heffer: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman for once this afternoon give a definite answer to one issue which is being raised? I, personally, am not against going into the Common Market, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues along this line it is quite clear that the Government are going to get us at all costs into the Community without explaining the position to the country.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member need feel no such anxiety. There are discussions going on with the Community in order to ensure that the various difficulties which are mentioned from time to time do not arise.

Pakistan

Mr. Shore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what relief supplies from the United Kingdom are now reaching the people of East Bengal; and whether the relief organisations there are able to supervise their distribution.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in the House on 11th May and to the


speech of my right hon. Friend in the debate on 14th May.—[Vol. 817, c. 206–213; Vol. 817, c. 761–767.]

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he submitted to U Thant that he should make further representations to the Pakistan Government about getting in an international team to assess the needs there. Has U Thant had any response from the Pakistan Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the exchange of letters, published on the 13th, indicates a deplorable lack of a sense of urgency on the part of the Pakistan Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have stressed the urgency of this many times. The United Nations and the World Bank are now in touch with the Government of Pakistan. I cannot report anything fresh today, except to say that they are in touch and are, I think, seized of the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Healey: Can the Secretary of State confirm or deny—I appreciate the difficulty of commenting on Press reports—reports that have appeared in the Press about the Pakistan Government having rejected U Thant's request that the United Nations should distribute aid in East Bengal? Have Her Majesty's Government made any representations on this matter, assuming that these reports are true?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There are two distinct matters. There is the aid that might now be distributed, and in that respect the refugee camps in India are perhaps the first priority. There is then, later, the aid that may be needed if there is severe famine in Pakistan. For the present, the Pakistan Government say that the only distribution of food that may be needed in East Pakistan must be distributed by the army. As for a United Nations team or United Nations distribution, this is still being discussed between U Thant and representatives of the Pakistan Government.

Mr. Healey: It is universally agreed—the Minister for Overseas Development accepted this on Friday—that there are 4 million people at this time in East Bengal suffering from the disasters caused by the floods last year and liable to die of famine unless stores which are already available in Chittagong are rapidly dis-

tributed. Is any progress being made in this matter?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: A United Nations representative is now in India considering this matter, at the request of the Indian Government, and I hope that we shall get a recommendation from him quite soon. If necessary, we could, of course, always take further action over the transport of supplies, but this should really be under an international umbrella now, and the right one is the United Nations.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the safety of British subjects in East Pakistan.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There have been no confirmed reports of injury to any United Kingdom nations in East Pakistan. There was one report of a United Kingdom national said to have been injured whilst crossing the frontier into India but despite investigations there is no confirmation of this.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many thousands of people in this country with relatives in East Pakistan who are unable to find out whether those relatives are alive or dead? Will he set up some system whereby people who are living here, whether British subjects or not, can ascertain whether their families are alive and in good health?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is one reason for the existence of the Pakistan High Commission in London. Relatives should go to the Pakistan High Commissioner and ask him for advice and advice and information.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that in present circumstances it is quite impossible for people from East Bengal to go to the Pakistan High Commission and make inquiries about their relatives? Will he confirm that the services of British diplomatic missions are available to United Kingdom citizens for this purpose and that they will be available to residents in this country who are not United Kingdom citizens?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There should be no difficulty whatever about people


from East Pakistan going to the High Commission to inquire whether it has any information about their relatives. I should have thought that it was obvious to hon. Members that the High Commission is much more likely to have it than we are. If people have any difficulty and we can supply information, we shall do so. But the High Commission is the obvious place to go to for this purpose.

Sir F. Bennett: Are not the remarks of hon. Members opposite an unwarranted implied slur on the Pakistan High Commissioner? Is it not a fact that the Deputy High Commissioner is a Bengali from East Pakistan?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. I should have thought that the High Commissioner and his staff would do everything they possibly could to try to help Pakistani citizens with information about their relatives. At present, information is extremely difficult to get, by anyone.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has submitted to the Pakistan Aid Consortium for a reassessment of the aid programme to Pakistan following the outbreak of civil war in East Pakistan.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I am not yet in a position to make proposals. Our decisions must await the outcome of consultations now taking place within the framework of the consortium.

Mr. Judd: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he would be prepared to take the initiative in calling for a review by the consortium to ensure that the international aid programmes to Pakistan are not underwriting the suppression of the people of East Pakistan?

Mr. Wood: I am very anxious that the consortium should reach an agreed view about this, and that is why I am very carefully considering the position we should take before the next meeting of the consortium.

Mr. Tilney: Would not my right hon. Friend bear in mind the urgent need which has lasted for many years now to build up funds against flood and storm?

Mr. Wood: I am taking note of that.

Mrs. Hart: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the pledging meeting of the aid consortium is scheduled for June? In the debate we had in the House last Friday many views were expressed on this question. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to keep the House fully informed about the progress of negotiations, not only about our offer but the general negotiations of the consortium?

Mr. Wood: I think I can give the right hon. Lady entire satisfaction on both points.

Haiti

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Comonwealth Affairs what message was sent by him to the Government of Haiti following the death of the late President Duvalier.

The Under-Secretary of State for Frogein and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Boyle): None, Sir. In accordance with normal protocol, Her Majesty's Ambassador to Haiti conveyed a message of condolence from Her Majesty The Queen. He also conveyed a message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware how insensitive it was for the Government to tender such advice, enabling telegrams of condolence to be sent in these circumstances? Are the Government unaware that this man was responsible for the death and imprisonment of thousands of people, most of them innocent? How could the Government have sent a telegram of condolence?

Mr. Royle: I am aware of the allegations to which the hon. Gentleman refers in the latter part of his supplementary question, but it is for the Haiti Government to answer any accusations. The answer to the first part is that we do not generally indicate our approval or disapproval of foreign regimes by the maintenance or severence of diplomatic relations with them. As far as possible, we seek to remain in diplomatic relations with all countries to enable us to look after the interests of the United Kingdom and its subjects.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: We did that with Hitler.

Joint Passports (Wives)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate new discussions in the United Nations to change the terms of the agreement which prevents wives from using joint passports when travelling alone, in view of the recent trend towards greater independence of married women.

Mr. Anthony Royle: No, Sir. Such a passport is issued to the husband, and, although the wife's particulars are included as a matter of convenience for family travel, she is not the joint holder. A married woman has always been able to have her own passport to which her children under 16 can be added.

Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister understand how much resentment is caused by this fuddy-duddy discrimination in these liberated days? Could not he look at this matter again to see whether more equal rights can be granted to holders of joint passports? What is the position of a married woman travelling on a joint passport if her husband dies while both are abroad together? What protection does she have?

Mr. Boyle: I should like notice of the second part of the hon. Lady's question. I will let her know the answer. On the first part of the question, we are tied by our international agreements on this matter. What we do is entirely in accordance with the agreement reached at the 1926 passport conference, and that agreement was reviewed at the 1963 United Nations conference and was not altered.

Dame Irene Ward: All these soft-soapy answers are no good to the women of this country, who feel very strongly on the matter. If the international agreements tie us to all sorts of things that we do not want to be tied to, could we not take a different line and get them altered?

Mr. Royle: I always love giving my hon. Friend soft answers; I hope that I am not giving her soapy answers. My hon. Friend must realise that we are tied by international agreements. But no doubt her words will have been read, and I am grateful to her for letting her views be known to the House.

Vatican (Diplomatic Representation)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise the British diplomatic representation at the Holy See from the rank of legation to that of embassy.

Mr. Anthony Royle: I am not aware that the status of our representative has any adverse effect upon our good relations with the Holy See, which we value. However, we are keeping the matter under regular consideration.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Minister realise that that was substantially the same reply as one I received five years ago when I raised this question? Does he realise further that the only other two countries, if that be the right word, represented at the Vatican by a Minister are San Marino and Monaco? Is it not unsuitable that a country of the importance of Great Britain, in a post where precedence and protocol are so important, should not be represented by an ambassador?

Mr. Royle: Yes; I realise that my reply was somewhat similar to the reply that my hon. Friend received five years ago. There were on 1st January, 1971, 74 diplomatic representatives or posts awaiting new representatives accredited to the Holy See. Of this total, 52 have resident representatives and 22 are non-resident. Australia and New Zealand are among other Commonwealth countries that have no representation to the Holy See. Her Majesty's Minister to the Holy See is in no way hindered in his activities by his present status.

European Free Trade Association (Meeting)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his discussions at the meeting of the European Free Trade Association held in Reykjavik on 13th and 14th May 1971.

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Seretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Free Trade Association


Ministerial meeting in Reykjavik on 13th and 14th May.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent European Free Trade Association Ministerial Council meeting.

Mr. Rippon: I am arranging for the Communiqué issued at the end of this meeting to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I hope to make a statement later today.

Following is the Communiqué:

E.F.T.A. MELTING 13TH AND 14TH MAY, COMMUNIQUÉ
On the invitation of the Government of Iceland, the E.F.T.A. Council and the Joint Council of E.F.T.A. and Finland met at ministerial level on 13th and 14th May, 1971, at Reykjavik, the hospitable capital of the newest member of E.F.T.A.
Mr. E. Brugger, Swiss Federal Councillor, Head of the Federal Department of Public Economy, was in the chair.
In the E.F.T.A. Council, with the Finnish Minister present in his personal capacity, Ministers held a full discussion of the prospects for wider European integration which had always been the main objective of E.F.T.A. They welcomed the progress made since their last meeting in November, 1970, in the negotiations and exploratory talks between the E.F.T.A. countries and the European Communities.
On the negotiations of the candidates for Community membership, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom, Ministers noted that a great deal had been accomplished and agreement reached on a large number of matters. They were especially glad to note the significant progress made in the meeting just concluded in Brussels between the United Kingdom and the Communities. Ministers furthermore considered that the exploratory talks of recent months between the E.F.T.A. countries not seeking membership and the Communities should provide a suitable basis for their forthcoming negotiations. They expressed confidence that a basis had now been laid for the solution of the outstanding problems in respect of all E.F.T.A. countries.
Ministers reaffirmed their strong interest in safeguarding, as an important part of an enlarged European Community, the free trade already established between E.F.T.A. countries. They reiterated their desire, which is in line with that expressed by the Communities, that all the accession treaties and special relations agreements should come into force at the same time: all these arrangements should be in conformity with the G.A.T.T.
The Association is engaged in finding workable solutions to the practical problems involved in the maintainance of the free trade already achieved in E.F.T.A. All Ministers

expressed appreciation for the work already done and instructed the Councils at official level, assisted by the Secretariat, to pursue it vigorously.
Ministers held a general discussion of the world trade situation during which reference was made to recent events in the monetary field. Emphasis was laid on the importance of current work in G.A.T.T. on non-tariff barriers and on the preparation of future negotiations for the further liberalisation of world trade. Ministers were pleased to note the support for this work recently expressed by the World Business Community through the International Chamber of Commerce. They emphasised that developments in Western Europe should not prejudice efforts to promote trade with other important areas, including trade between East and West. Ministers noted with satisfaction that the Generalised Preference Scheme for the benefit of the developing countries would soon be brought into effect, according to the principles laid down both in the O.E.C.D. and U.N.C.T.A.D.
Ministers noted with satisfaction the continued increase in trade in the E.F.T.A. countries and particularly in their trade with each other, which in 1970 had shown a larger increase than in any year since the Association was founded. This once again illustrated the advantages which the E.F.T.A. countries had obtained from the abolition of barriers to trade between them. Ministers also noted that June, 1971, would mark the 10th anniversary of Finland's association with E.F.T.A. Over that period the co-operation under equal rights and obligations between Finland and the E.F.T.A. member states had developed to the fullest satisfaction of all members of the Association Agreement.
Noting that the necessity for national inspection, for health and safety purposes, of the production of certain goods could result in considerable non-tariff barriers to trade, Ministers welcomed the new agreements which had been concluded for the mutual recognition of inspections of a number of important articles of trade: pharmaceuticals, pressure vessels and ships' safety equipment. These agreements were open to the membership of other countries with comparable inspection systems and Ministers would welcome interest on the part of such countries. They also hoped that these agreements would be followed by others concerning different products.
Ministers agreed that the next regular Ministerial meeting of the Councils will take place in Geneva on 4th and 5th November, 1971.

Ceylon (Arms Supplies)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Ceylon about further supplies of arms.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have, naturally, been in consultation with the Ceylon Government. My information is


that their immediate needs have now been met.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority in this House will support the Government in any action taken, and over the sending of any supplies to support democratic institutions in this Commonwealth country?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We took the view, which I am glad to see has my hon. Friend's approval, that when law and order was threatened we had an obligation to a Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Dalyell: Do immediate needs include further supplies of arms?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have said that there has been no request for further supplies of arms. If there was we would consider it on its merits.

East-West Security Conference

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he is taking towards the holding of an East-West Security Conference; and if, in the light of the current situation as regards Berlin, he will not insist on prior settlement of that issue as a pre-condition.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This question will be discussed at the forthcoming Ministerial Meeting of N.A.T.O. in Lisbon. Hitherto the view of our Allies, fully shared by Her Majesty's Government, has been that questions of European security cannot be dissociated from the Berlin problem.

Mr. Allaun: While we all want to see some progress over Berlin, is it not wrong to make the settlement of the Berlin problem a pre-condition? Is this not being put forward as yet another obstacle to holding the conference when all sides seem to want such a conference? Why cannot we get on with it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The answer to that question is that if we cannot make progress on what ought to be a comparatively simple matter—that is, arranging civilised conditions of entry to the city of Berlin with the Soviet Union—there is not much point in setting up new machinery for wider consultations. We

are trying very hard to get a Berlin settlement. The sooner that is done the sooner we can get on to further measures of conciliation.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that because Berlin is a potential powder keg it is essential that these two things should go hand in hand?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. We must not be rigid in this matter. I am certain that agreement on Berlin would open the door to other negotiating positions with the Soviet Union. The sooner we get on with the Berlin settlement the better.

Mr. Healey: While the whole House will share the Foreign Secretary's view that there should be a settlement on Berlin as soon as possible, may I ask him whether he would not accept that when N.A.T.O. first made its proposals in 1968 for mutual and balanced force reductions negotiated with the Warsaw Pact it did not settle on Berlin as a condition but this condition was set, in my view quite rightly, when the much wider question of a European Security Conference was raised by the Soviet Union? Is it not the case that in the last few days both Mr. Brehznev in the Soviet Union and Mr. Rogers in the United States have indicated a desire to hold an early conference on mutual and balanced force reductions without any pre-conditions regarding the holding of a European conference? Is he aware that Mr. Brehznev has recently stopped talking about a European Security Conference and talks simply about a European conference? Would the Foreign Secretary undertake on behalf of the Government to support any move inside the Western Alliance to move rapidly to negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions quite separately, if necessary, from a general conference on Berlin as well?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, but reductions must be mutual and balanced. I cannot see any reason, as there is a Disarmament Committee permanently sitting in Geneva, in active session—although it does not move much—why this question cannot be taken there.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member will be brief, I hope.

Mr. Healey: I will be brief. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman's Government has until now taken the view that the question of mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe should be discussed between the two alliances and not at the Geneva meeting. Is he not aware that Mr. Rogers yesterday made a statement indicating that the American Government were prepared to proceed immediately to discussions on mutual and balanced force reductions provided that the Soviet Union said that it was sincerely interested in doing so?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We will at any time be willing to do that but I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this question of disarmament can be discussed at Geneva, along with wider questions. If any special machinery is necessary we are certainly willing to consider it.

South Africa (Arms Supplies)

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has now received requests for the issue of licences to supply arms to South Africa.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No requests for licences relating to any new arms deal with South Africa have been received. However, as I told the House on 22nd February, we are continuing the practice of the previous Administration in licensing the export of certain spare parts.—[Vol. 812, c. 34–42.]

Mr. Lyon: Does that mean that no applications for licences for the Westland helicopters have yet been received? Is it right that because of the doubt which still exists over the Government's future policy, in Zambia, for instance, Marconi has lost a valuable contract? Does this also apply to Nigeria? Have we lost important contracts there?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No request for licences for the helicopters has yet been received. I am not aware that we have lost important contracts because of any doubt about our South African arms policy. These questions should be treated on their merits, irrespective of what future policy might be.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: From the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, can it be taken that no discussions are taking place

with a view to any extension of arms sales to South Africa? Can we read that into the answer?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman can put his own interpretation on my answer. What would happen if the South African Government wanted to place orders for arms would be that it would make a request for licences. No such request has been received.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If there is any blackmail from any Government, as the hon. Member has suggested—and I do not know whether that is the case—may all aid be stopped at once?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am not anxious to link our aid programme with political issues. We must try to avoid that if possible.

Portugal

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the purpose of his forthcoming official visit to Portugal.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Portuguese Government invited me to pay a short official visit to Lisbon on 1st and 2nd June, since I shall be attending the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Lisbon on 3rd and 4th June. I welcomed this opportunity to exchange views with the Portuguese Foreign Minister.

Mr. Judd: The House will appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman condones neither the suppression of human rights within Portugal nor the repression of people in her overseas territories, but will he take up with the Portuguese Government the degree of feeling in this country on both these scores and discuss with them the concern in this country about the possible abuse of Portugal's membership of N.A.T.O. in the conduct of her overseas wars?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have no evidence whatever of any abuse by Portugal of her obligations to N.A.T.O. as a result of her overseas policies in Africa. The substance of the discussions with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Portugal must be confidential.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of


pressing upon the Portuguese Government the feelings, not only in this country, but in the rest of the world, about Portugal's continued occupation of her colonies and, in so doing, give the kind of lead that Mr. Harold Macmillan gave in South Africa in the "wind of change" speech.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Our colonial policy and the colonial policy of the Portuguese Government have differed and are different. This is a matter for the Portuguese Government in which I would not interfere. I shall, of course, discuss these matters with the Minister.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Do we not have something to learn from Portugal in the matter of good race relations?

Developing Countries (Central Institute of Research)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations through the appropriate channels responsible for the organisation of aid to developing countries to secure the establishment of a central institute of research on co-operative systems on a multi-lateral basis.

Mr. Wood: Many international governmental and non-governmental agencies are already working in the field of cooperative research and development. I think it is more important to improve the co-ordination of these activities through the channels already available than to create another new body.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is perhaps most important in the area of agrarian and subsistence economies that co-operative economic and social systems of self-help are built up? In the last 10 years, as he rightly said, a multitude of research projects have been announced. Is it not vitally important that we should have one central research institute to avoid duplication, and also to assess the results of the research which has been going on?

Mr. Wood: Because it is an important area and because co-ordinating institutions do exist it is important to increase the efficiency of those co-ordinating institutions rather than create a new one.

India

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Indian Foreign Minister with a view to increasing the amount of economic aid; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wood: None, Sir, but we regularly consult the Government of India about aid matters.

Mr. Dempsey: Has the recent television programme about Mr. Muggeridge in Calcutta been drawn to the Minister's attention? It showed an elderly man lying dying at the roadside and being half eaten by rats, and also showed a boy of five being thrown on the street because his people could no longer keep him. Is that not a blight on the British Commonwealth? Cannot something be done to alleviate this terrible hardship?

Mr. Wood: I am afraid I missed the television programme, but I am well aware that there is a great problem in India, and that is one of the reasons why one-fifth of our whole aid programme goes to India.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that India has the additional problem of looking after 2 million Pakistani refugees, plus 70,000 a day coming in? If Pakistan is raising objections to aid and supervision, cannot the British Government provide additional aid to India to look after the Pakistanis?

Mr. Wood: There was a good deal of discussion about refugees from Pakistan in the debate last Friday, when, I think, the hon. Member was unable to be here, and when I made it quite clear that the United Nations was examining this matter and that we would be willing to join in and make a contribution if the United Nations effort were maintained.

Union of Arab Emirates

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress towards a Union of Arab Emirates between the Trucial States and Bahrain and Qatar.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Recent efforts by the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti


Governments have not yet brought about agreement on a constitution between the member States of the Union of Arab Emirates. The situation is now being considered by the Governments concerned, and Sir William Luce is now visiting the area again at my request to make an up-to-date assessment.

Mr. Mather: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him, in view of the increasing instability in the area and the territorial threats from various sources, whether he can give an assurance that there will be no hasty decision about withdrawal of British troops from the area?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think my hon. Friend knows the position about the withdrawal. We are taking infinite care to create the right political structure in which we can make treaty arrangements.

Mr. Healey: Could the Foreign Secretary tell us what the Government's view is of recent statements from the Iranian Government concerning the Tumbs and Abu Musa? Does he not recognise that there is a risk of a rather squalid and ludicrous military confrontation on these tiny islands unless there is rapid progress in making a settlement, and can he tell us how far he has gone?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The need to settle this question is obvious, but I would rather not go into details now, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could put down a Question later.

Commonwealth African States (British Assets)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value of British assets expropriated in Commonwealth African States since January, 1966; and to what extent compensation has been obtained.

Mr. Anthony Royle: It is not practicable to give the figure sought by my hon. Friend. Negotiations have been completed or are in train between the Governments concerned and some companies affected.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that, despite sanctions and bans of various kinds, there has been no expropriation in Southern Africa? Should not

this be borne in mind when assessing our economic interests north and south of the Zambesi respectively?

Mr. Royle: I have noted my hon. Friend's remark, which is in substance correct. My hon. Friend was sent detailed information on 27th August last, and I can, if he wishes, send him further information, as it is available, about expropriations and settlements since that date.

West Germany (Offset Agreement)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been paid by the West German Government for currency compensation to Great Britain for keeping her Armed Forces in West Germany since 1961; and whether the new agreement will involve a further increase in the payment by the Bonn Government.

Mr. Anthony Royle: The value of the offset provisions since 1961 is£581 million. Under the new agreement, we shall be receiving cash payments totalling about£62·5 million over the next five years in addition to civil and military purchases to be made by the Federal Government on the lines of earlier agreements.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the increase in the payments made by the German Government will match the increasing cost of living and the increasing cost of money?

Mr. Royle: It is true that we have never since the occupation régime ended in 1955 asked the Federal Government to pay us the entire budgetary costs of maintaining our troops in Germany. That would be a manifestly unfair and unrealistic demand.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the meetings I attended in Brussels and Reykjavik last week. I am sure the


House will forgive me if I go into some detail.
At the meeting with the Community in Brussels in the early part of the week we reached agreement on a number of important points. For convenience, I will deal with the matters in the order in which they arose.
First, there was a satisfactory measure of agreement on Euratom. When this subject was first broached, the Community asked the candidate countries for compensation for access to the assets of Euratom. We said we did not think this request was justified, and I am glad to say that it was withdrawn. We have now agreed in principle to an exchange of knowledge of equivalent value, to take place immediately after our entry. We have also settled a number of legal issues arising out of our acceptance of the Euratom Treaty, including its application to our dependent territories with the exception of Hong Kong.
Next, tariff quotas. We reached agreement on arrangements for twelve industrial products which we at present import wholly or mainly duty free, and where it appeared that the imposition of the Common External Tariff would have meant a new charge on supplies to British industry. The products in question are phosphorus, silicone carbide, wattle extract, plywood, wood pulp, newsprint, ferro chrome, ferro silicone, aluminium, lead and zinc. The only product on which we have yet to settle is alumina. The effect of the arrangements we have made is that around 90 per cent. of our imports of these commodities from outside the enlarged Community would continue to be imported duty free.
The Community also agreed to an indefinite suspension of the Common External Tariff on tea. With permission, I will circulate details of these inevitably complicated arrangements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
We then dealt with the important issue of agricultural transition and Community preference. Here we were able to settle the main problems, and agree on a basis on which the remaining points of detail can be worked out.
Briefly, we would adopt the mechanism of the common agricultural policy at the beginning of the transitional period, but

our transition to Community prices would be achieved by six even steps spread over five years. The deficiency payments system would be phased out gradually during that period. British producers and consumers and third countries should thus have time enough to make the adjustments which in many cases would be necessary.
On trade with third countries, we have secured explicit recognition by the Community that if circumstances arose during the transitional period in which significant volumes of trade risked serious disruption, then the enlarged Community would deal with the position. The Community would likewise take rapid and effective action to deal with any difficulties which might arise in the operation of the transitional mechanisms.
The Community recognised that we had a special problem over horticulture. Here it was agreed first that tariff adjustment for horticultural products should proceed at a slower rate; secondly, that no move on horticultural tariffs should take place until a year after our accession; thirdly, that there should be provision for flexibility in the adjustment of horticultural tariffs to permit some modifications of the process if necessary; and, finally, that for apples and pears, where there is a special problem arising from surpluses in the Community, we should replace our quota arrangements at the beginning of transition by a system of compensatory levies, offsetting the difference between British and Community prices. These levies would be gradually phased out during the transition period as British and Community prices come into line. Taken together, these measures should ensure that British horticulture gets the exceptional treatment which it needs.
I now turn to the question of our contribution to the Community budget. As the House will know, there are several ways of approaching this difficult and important problem. The Community has now suggested an entirely new approach, based on certain initial principles.
The idea is that a percentage—or key—would be set, which would vary by small amounts annually, and would represent the proportion of the Community budget which we would notionally be expected to pay in each of


the years of the transitional period. But the sums actually payable in each year would be reduced by a large amount at the start of the transitional period and by a progressively smaller amount as time went on until we arrived at full acceptance of the Community's direct income system. An important and favourable development is that the Community admits the possibility of a further period of correctives after the end of the transitional period.
While welcoming this new approach, I made it clear that its usefulness could only be assessed when precise figures were attached to the formula to enable us to see what we would actually be paying. But if the figures were fair and reasonable, I see no reason why the present proposal should not provide the means of arriving at a solution satisfactory to all concerned.
Finally, I come to two related questions: that of the association with the Community of the developing Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean and Indian and Pacific Oceans; and that of future imports Of sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries.
The Community has now agreed that it is prepared to reaffirm the 1963 Declaration of Intent in respect of the independent Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, Mauritius, Fiji, Western Samoa and Tonga. This declaration offered a choice between two forms of association and a trading agreement. I warmly welcomed its reaffirmation, which would give the countries concerned complete and wide protection and freedom of choice. They would have up to 1975 to negotiate these arrangements with the enlarged Community, of which we should of course then be a member. Until then our existing pattern of trade with them would remain unchanged.
As regards sugar, the Community on 11th May undertook to bear in mind the importance of sugar for the economies of the developing Commonwealth countries concerned after 1974, and suggested that the question should be settled within the framework of negotiations on whatever form of association or trading agreement these countries wanted. I replied that this approach was helpful but needed clarification. I did not think that the undertaking, so far as sugar was con-

cerned, was sufficiently firm to provide the sort of assurance which the Caribbean countries and other sugar producers had always needed.
In the early hours of 13th May, after further contacts, the Community put an additional text to us. They now said that it would be the firm purpose of the enlarged Community to safeguard the interests of the countries in question whose economies depended to a considerable degree on the export of primary products, in particular sugar. This text amounts to more than a declaration of intention. It is both a specific and a moral commitment.
I can now say this to the developing sugar producing countries of the Commonwealth. There would be room in the enlarged Community, of which Britain would be part, both for present quantities of sugar from these countries at remunerative prives and for the development of sugar beet production. With this safeguard now promised, I believe the House can he satisfied that these countries will not suffer from our entry into the Community. The assurances which successive British Governments have given to these developing countries have now been double-banked by the Community's commitment.
I thanked the Community for its declaration but made it clear that before accepting it, I must consult the Commonwealth countries concerned. I am hoping to arrange these consultations in the very near future.
I believe that the progress on all these points which was made in Brussels last week is a clear demonstration of the Community's desire to carry the negotiations rapidly forward to a successful conclusion. We shall be meeting again at an additional Ministerial meeting in Luxembourg on 7th June.
At the end of the week I was in Reykjavik for discussions with my Ministerial colleagues of the European Free Trade Association. My colleagues unanimously expressed satisfaction at the progress made in the Brussels negotiations and in the discussions the E.F.T.A. countries were having with the Community. They expressed their confidence that all E.F.T.A. countries would be able to participate in the progress of European integration in a way acceptable to the Community and to themselves.

Mr. Healey: I hope that I may be allowed to concentrate on the sugar issue, not only because of its importance in itself, but because it is a symbol of two things: first, of the way in which the British Government are handling the negotiations, and, secondly, of the attitude of the Community to the developing world.
First, I should like to ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that many of us feel that he might have got an acceptable and bankable agreement on sugar if he had stuck to the line he took on Tuesday night, when he talked of figures and quantities, instead of collapsing like a pricked balloon when asked to create a pleasant climate for the meeting of the Prime Minister and President Pompidou.
He said in the statement that we now had a firm undertaking that the Commonwealth countries would not suffer. Does this mean that Her Majesty's Government are free to renew the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in 1974 if the Community fails to provide for a continuation of their sugar exports to Europe and if Her Majesty's Government and the exporting countries themselves feel they will be otherwise condemned to the fate which Madagascar, Congo-Brazzaville and Surinam have also suffered as a result of similar agreements made by France and Holland at an earlier stage?
My second question is this. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have not yet accepted this arrangement and that its acceptance depends on the outcome of consultation with the developing Commonwealth countries concerned. Could he assure the House that if the Commonwealth countries themselves take the view—which I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not—that they would be better off with figures and quantities, which is what he was asking for last Tuesday, Her Majesty's Government will go back to the Community and insist on hard figures and quantities?
My next question—and I know how seriously hon. Members on both sides of the House will take the reply—is this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would insist on precise figures for the financial contribution to be made by Her Majesty's Government. Could he assure the House that he will not accept a vague concatenation of adjec-

tives, as for Commonwealth sugar, as a substitute for hard figures in the case of New Zealand butter and lamb? If he is to insist on hard figures for New Zealand, why does he not do so also for Mauritius, Fiji and the Caribbean countries, which are very much poorer than New Zealand and much more dependent on Britain for a single crop?

Mr. Rippon: First of all, may I say that I got out of the Community a firm assurance that I sought. It was an assurance designed not simply to cover quantities but also prices and employment. What we need to do is to safeguard the interests of the developing Commonwealth countries as a whole. The combination of the offer of association and the wide-ranging opportunities under that, plus the specific reference to sugar, make it perfectly clear what we and the Community have agreed upon and the policy which the enlarged Community would be committed to follow.
So far as 1974 is concerned, I do not think then the question would arise of our renegotiating the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement as such. What we would then have to do is to renegotiate within the enlarged Community an agreement which covered their associates and ours. We have said what our position is in regard to our associates and the need we see to cover their position, and I believe that the Community takes the same view about its own.
As far as New Zealand is concerned, I think the position is rather different because New Zealand cannot be brought within the framework of an offer of association. Thus, a different approach is required in that regard. So far as my consultations with the Commonwealth are concerned, because many of them have anxieties, to some extent generated by comments which, naturally enough, are made far away from them, I hope to explain to them what the Community's assurance means and what opportunities are now open to them in negotiating whatever form of association or trading agreement they like with particular reference to the problems of sugar. If, of course, they ask me for a lesser assurance than the ones I have been given, then I would certainly take their views to heart, but I shall try to dissuade them.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that unless


the developing Commonwealth countries obtain a quantitative assurance this year their economies are likely to collapse long before 1974, because the planting of sugar requires assurances as to the market in seven years' time? To come back to my initial point, could he assure the Commonwealth countries either that they will get a quantitative market, on which they have always insisted, or that Her Majesty's Government will have the right to renew the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in the absence of an agreement by the Community? I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Surinam and a number of other countries have already suffered catastrophic economic damage to their sugar exports as a result of an agreement entered into by other European countries identical in form to the one the right hon. and learned Gentleman has presented to the House this afternoon.

Mr. Rippon: I have no reason to suppose that the Community would in any way depart from the spirit and intent of their declaration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But let us suppose that in 1974 we were unable to negotiate a new regime. We would then be within the Community and have our own rights as regards voting. We have very much in mind, as I explained in the statement, the need to protect in an appropriate way the developing countries.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first for supplementary questions those hon. Members who had put down Questions and did not ask supplementary questions when they were called because the Minister said that he would be making a statement.

Mr. Moate: Would my right hon. and learned Friend accept that nobody could suggest he was selling out British and Commonwealth interests—rather, he is giving them away for nothing? Since he has failed to give specific answers, could he say specifically on sugar whether the Community has offered any means of reducing its surplus without which any agreement or assurance is meaningless? Secondly, would he recognise that the Community destroys more apples and pears than this country produces? Until that structural surplus is eliminated, any agreement of one, two, three or five years is meaningless and something of a farce?

Mr. Rippon: I do not accept the assertion in the first part of the question. In regard to apples and pears, in order to protect the British horticulture prices and producers against Community surpluses and lower prices in the Community, we have made special arrangements. There will be freedom for British horticulturists and opportunities in the enlarged Community for British horticultural produce which, if it cannot always compete on price, will be able to compete on quality.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the overall progress made at Brussels carries forward the policy of the previous Government and will be welcomed by a decisive majority of hon. Members in this House? [Interruption.]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Sheik of Araby.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new methods that he has outlined for the payment of the financial contribution have a number of obvious advantages? But will he say more about the period of time over which the rebates under this scheme are to be paid? Will it just be five years, or will six, seven or eight years be possible?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Rippon: I was so overcome by the generosity of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks that I almost faded away.
All the rebates will be completed in the five-year period—over the whole of the transitional arrangements—except for this possibility of correctives in regard to the financial arrangements.

Mr. Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, to some extent, he has prejudiced his negotiation standing in the sense that he thanked the representatives at the meeting, and now we have a situation where, I am convinced, an overwhelming majority of this House rejects the propositions that he has put forward and that, above all, the sugar interests involved reject them?

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that that is wrong. I am sure that the Community, whose intentions were good from the outset of our discussions, have clarified


exactly what they meant. I did not think that just "bearing in mind" was enough. To declare a firm purpose to safeguard interests does not mean only one vital interest but all of them. It means all the exports of developing countries, particularly sugar. One of the difficulties about sugar is that we have these agreements which run until 1974. So have the Community. Even in our negotiations, if we were not applying to join the Community, we do not state far in advance exactly what the position will be at the end of the negotiations. What we have to take into account is all the factors, which are quantity, remunerative price, and also the roll-on.

Mr. Marten: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he has not dealt with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)? Congo-Brazzaville and Madagascar had associated status of the type which is offered now. They had quotas, and now they have hardly any sugar trade with the Common Market. This was vetoed by the Council of Ministers. In the case of Surinam, the Dutch went into the Common Market on this sort of assurance with the result that Surinam's was cut by half and it expires in 1975. Has not my right hon. and learned Friend seen the writing on the wall?

Mr. Rippon: We are concerned, therefore, to protect our arrangements up to the period of renegotiation. When these matters are renegotiated, we shall insist on the implementation of the assurance that the Six have given us.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we can put our trust in the protections that have been given. Is not he aware that, only in the last few weeks, the Germans, who had agreed with the French and the remainder of the Six that they would not revalue unless they had the agreement of the Six, none the less revalued? There is an example of a definite promise and a written pledge being broken. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman trust a pledge such as this?

Mr. Rippon: That is an entirely different issue, and no written pledges were broken. There was a long and very warm discussion, at the end of which they reached a measure of agreement.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In respect of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a firm undertaking—

Mr. Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that this part of the sitting, while we are dealing with proceedings following on a statement, should be regarded as a hang-over from Question Time, when so many hon. Members who did not put down Questions are now denied the right for a long period to put Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I am denying anyone's right—yet. But so many right hon. and hon. Members try to catch my eye at the end of each answer that it is difficult for me to see whether those with Questions on the Order Paper are amongst them. Mr. Wellbeloved.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a firm undertaking that, in respect of super, he will consult the Caribbean Islands and Fiji and that, unless they agree to the terms that he will finally recommend, he will withdraw the whole proposition?

Mr. Rippon: That is not a good basis on which to start consultations, which will be full and will deal with all these relevant matters.

Mr. Sandys: While congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friend on the excellent progress that he has made in these extremely difficult negotiations, may I ask him a further question about sugar? Does not he feel that any realistic person who understands the problem will think that the offer of a long-term association coupled with a categorical declaration by the Community of their intention to safeguard the interests of sugar producing countries represents as fair and as reasonable a solution as can be reached—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is there any good reason to doubt the good faith—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—of those who, we hope, will soon be our partners?

Mr. Rippon: I think that my right hon. Friend is right. After all, in the last analysis, the prosperity of the sugar producers depends upon our good intentions and our determination to safeguard their interests as we go along. Since


13th May, our intentions have been reinforced by the declaration of the Community. That is why I say that the assurances have been double-banked.

Mr. Shore: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he is taking a very great gamble with the livelihood and prosperity of people who are dependent upon us? He owes it to the House to say what it is that made him change his mind from demanding, as we all knew, bankable security for the West Indies, to accepting what at best is a statement of good will? At the same time, why have the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friends changed their minds about what is acceptable in relation to the financing of the Community and our part in it? Within four months of the opening statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that unless we could get a change in the system itself the terms that would result would impose burdens upon us that we could not bear and which no British Government could accept, why is it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have accepted precisely those terms and that system at the end of the transitional period, and have not had the face to tell us openly about it?

Mr. Rippon: As for the proposals in regard to finance and our contribution to the Community budget, given that we get percentages and figures put to the proposals which have now been laid before us by the Community, there is nothing inconsistent between those proposals and the ones suggested by the previous Government or by my right hon. Friend, the present Prime Minister. There is no difficulty about the principle. It was always understood that there were a number of ways in which we could try to approach the movement of resources problem, but that throughout the transition we should start relatively low and move up in a progressive way. In so far as the new proposals permitted it, I regarded that as a basis for negotiation, but I said that we must see in more precision what they had in mind and then come back to the House and report.
The difficulty about sugar is that we have our agreement, to which we have been told that we can hold and the Community have their own arrangements to

which they will hold, These agreements have never depended entirely upon precise figures of tonnage. If we had insisted on a negotiation of tonnage, they would then have had to reconsider their own arrangements, and we would have ended up perhaps with a lower figure than the one which we really wanted to secure. Bearing in mind that sugar is now linked with the offer of association and, therefore, that these people will be brought within the Community, this throws a different light on the situation.
I have said all along—I spoke to the House about this on my return from the Caribbean—that it was not sufficient to consider a sugar agreement alone. A sugar agreement alone would not cover all the problems of the developing countries, which could only be met by association. Equally, an offer of association would not be sufficient without an understanding on sugar. So these two matters have been closely linked together. I do not think that the full significance of this has been appreciated everywhere. At one time in the negotiations there was great pressure both inside and outside the Community not to extend the influence of the Community beyond Europe and Africa, and that this offer of association should not be extended to the Caribbean countries and to countries in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. I pressed this case, and I am glad to say that the Community have now agreed to renew the offer.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obvious desire of a vast number of hon. Members on both sides to have plenty of time to discuss this matter in full, will you allow the Leader of the House to tell us whether we can have an early debate on it?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. If the Leader of the House has a communication to make, no doubt he will make it.

Mr. Turton: After that last reply, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain why, in his dialogue to the deaf speech on Tuesday, he asked for bankable assurances for 1,400,000 tons of Commonwealth sugar and he now appears to have withdrawn that demand? Has that demand been withdrawn? If so, why?

Mr. Rippon: I did not put it in that way. I recognised that the situation had


changed as soon as the Community reaffirmed the Declaration of Intent of 1963. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think of all these matters together within the context of association, which changes the whole negotiating position. I said that I thought that there would be a great deal of difficulty if we did not clarify the situation, because the developing countries of the Commonwealth needed some sense of security so that they could know that their interests were to be safeguarded and could plan their production in that way.
In the evening I spoke to them rather firmly about this matter and said that one of our difficulties in the negotiations was that I made a statement, the Chairman took note of it, and they then needed time to consider the effect of what I had said. I said that they should deal with this matter urgently; it needed only a sentence or two to clarify the position. As a result of the discussions which we had, we got this strong commitment. Many people have taken the view that all that we did was change the words from "bearing in mind" to "take to heart". That is not what happened. The translation of the French is not simply "take to heart", which is a very strong expression in French—[Interruption.] This is not unimportant. It is a strong expression—[Interruption.] It is a rather important point, because it is part of the agreement. This is the sentence to which we have to hold in future, a sentence which should be clear to ordinary men and women. It translates as, "It is the firm purpose of the Community to safeguard the interests". If I did not think that that was a bankable assurance, I should not have accepted it.

Mr. Harold Wilson: If the whole assurance depends on the translation of these rather obscure words in French, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now answer these questions on sugar? Will he undertake to report to the House the results of his negotiations and consultations with Caribbean and other Commonwealth Leaders? If they are not satisfied with the agreement with which he is satisfied, will he give due notice to the Community that it is not accepted and that he is reopening the matter?
Will he now answer the question which I put to the Prime Minister on Thursday

—it was rather early then for anyone to have the full details—namely, whether the French or any other country would have a veto on our proposal to continue the sugar agreement after 1974 in default of really firm bankable arrangements? Will he further give an undertaking that he will not seek to negotiate the New Zealand problem on the same basis as he appears willing to negotiate the sugar agreement? Finally, will he circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the name of a bank which would regard as bankable a three-year operation when there is a seven-year period of production?

Mr. Rippon: On the translation, the right hon. Gentleman, who has some experience of international negotiations, knows that it is important, for the avoidance of misunderstanding, that there should be clear understanding of what words mean in both languages. That is why I was concerned about clarification on that point. Clear language of that kind is, in my view, a bankable assurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] After all, many people buy products with guarantees with lots of fine print. They would do better to tear up the guarantees and rely upon the normal assurances about goods of warrantable quality. Long detailed guarantees, in my view, would not at the end of the day be as good a bargain for the developing countries of the Commonwealth as one simple statement which we can all remember for years ahead long after the small print may have been forgotten.
The consultations will be those which I have promised, and I shall report back to the House on the developments.
Concerning veto, I believe that we can rely upon the assurance that the Community have solemnly given. When there has been so much discussion about it in the Community, there can be no question of their saying that they did not understand what they were doing, because we underlined it in the most firm way. Our Commonwealth Sugar Agreement ends in 1974 and their convention ends in 1975. There will then be a renegotiation of two new régimes, and if we do not get safeguards for the interests of the developing countries, then we could exercise a veto. It must be remembered that we are very large consumers of sugar.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question about New Zealand?

Mr. Rippon: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raising a point of order?

Mr. Paget: I was wishing to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—under Standing Order No. 9 to consider an urgent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker: This is not the right time to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Rippon: May I first answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition about New Zealand, and whether we can negotiate her position in the same way as for sugar. The answer is that, as things are at the moment, there is no question of New Zealand being offered association. It has not been sought, or been asked for by New Zealand. Therefore, we have to proceed in a different way.
As far as the sugar regime is concerned, perhaps talk of vetoes is unfortunate, because I am satisfied that the Community meant what it said, and that we can rely on that. If, at the end of the day, a situation arose which we could not agree, then one would no doubt have a crisis in the Community, which we would resolve, holding firmly to the assurance that we have been given. Without the implementation of that assurance, I do not see how we can accept a new régime, or an amendment of the régime.

Mr. Thorpe: Although there is still much to negotiate, may I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the progress that has been made to date? Is he aware that the interests of this country and, indeed, of the Commonwealth, do not depend on small print or phrases but on whether there is trust between the partners in Europe, and whether there is genuine enthusiasm for a united Europe? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take comfort from the fact that, apart from those who now choose to sit on the fence—

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Thorpe: —wherever they may happen to sit in this House, the main critics, and the most vocal critics, are drawn from the extreme Right and the extreme Left of British political life, who have historically been renowned not only for their isolationism but for their complete lack of vision?

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that at the end of the day, when the House as a whole can judge the package, there will be no doubt whatever that it is a British interest, a European interest, and in the interests of the whole of the Commonwealth, developed and developing, that these negotiations should succeed.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As one who believes—and many people in the country share this view—that the outcome of these negotiations is going to decide not just what will be the price across the counters of this country for the next five years but what will be the future of our children and our children's children, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he would not agree that it is important that all of us know the full package deal before we form any final judgment whatsoever? When that package deal is known, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the opening sentence of the speech made to the Conservative seminar two weeks ago by M. Berthoin, who particularly emphasised that the purpose of the Treaty of Rome was political?

Mr. Rippon: All those considerations must be borne in mind. I can only repeat that, at the end of the day, I do not believe that this House would let the British people turn their backs on their rightful destiny.

Mr. Barnett: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the French still insist on sterling being part of the negotiations? While one would accept that the idea of cutting balances by 5 per cent. a year is nonsense, as I am sure they would, will he nevertheless be prepared to give a firm commitment not just about discussions, but about not having a higher level of sterling balances than there are now and about negotiating the removal of sterling's reserve rôle?

Mr. Rippon: Matters for negotiation are limited to questions such as the harmonisation of capital movements. We have made it clear that we are prepared to have discussions about the future rôle


of sterling, its reserve rôle, and sterling balances, in the appropriate forum, and in the appropriate way. I cannot add anything to what I said during the debate on 23rd January, and to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in a number of statements to the House.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is not the position in regard to sugar in essence that up till 1974 we have been graciously accorded permission not to breach our clear contractual commitments, and thereafter we have to make do with the general assurance, unparticularised as to terms, and unquantified as to amounts, which, in the language of the law, with which my right hon. and learned Friend is so familiar, would certainly be held void for uncertainty?

Mr. Rippon: I think we must remember that we ourselves would be renegotiating in 1974 on the conditions which existed then. To that extent, matters must be hypothetical. We must safeguard the interests of the developing countries in the context of the situation then. We are satisfied that, in the light of the assurances that we have been given, coupled with the agreement about association, or trading agreements, which can be negotiated in the period up to 1974, we can ensure that the developing countries in the Commonwealth not merely do not suffer, but will benefit to a greater degree by access, with us, to this large and growing market.

Mr. Bottomley: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that trade, rather than aid, is in the best interests of Europe and the developing countries? I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing in support of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, but can he say what representations he has made to see that we maintain our trade with Malaysia, and retain the Anglo-Indian Trade Agreement which has been in being since 1939?

Mr. Rippon: I made a statement on this some time ago. In relation to the Asian Commonwealth, the Community confirmed its intentions of having a trading agreement in that regard. We have the nil C.E.T. on tea extended indefinitely, and the Community has spoken of the need not only to maintain but to extend

trade in that direction. I think that that covers that position.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of trade. This is the best form of aid. I was convinced, after my visit to the Caribbean, that it was no good saying to the Caribbean even simply that they would have the continuation of the benefits under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. There were all the other tropical products to be considered. It was imperative that they should have the offer of association. I urged on the Community, and on other Government who have an interest in this, that they should not face the developing countries of the Commonwealth with a choice between association with Europe, or loss of generalised preference schemes, and matters of that kind. All of us, as developed countries, have to make a contribution to the developing Commonwealth which not only maintains quantities at remunerative prices, but, above all maintains and, I hope, improve their present level of employment.

Mr. Tapsell: If the Deutschemark continues to float, will it be possible for the Community, within the next few weeks, to give my right hon. and learned Friend the firm figures for which he has naturally asked, so that he can assess the new proposals about our association with the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that there will be any difficulty about that.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of us who have the interests of the developing countries at heart have been impressed with what the Community has done for the 18 States in the Yaoundé Convention? If this means that we shall be able to extend the same advantages to our dependencies, it will be of great benefit to them.
Will the Minister confirm that when the YaoundéConvention has to be renegotiated, as we shall be concerned about our relations with our former dependencies on the question of sugar, we shall have a veto over the continuance of the Community's relations with its former dependencies, and this will be a mutual arrangement for the benefit of all parties?

Mr. Rippon: That is correct, and we shall have to make arrangements which,


at the end of the day, are acceptable to the enlarged Community as a whole, of which we would be part.

Mr. Jennings: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the only language allowed—and fully understood—in this House is English, and that the phrase "take to heart" may be strong in the French connotation but in this country is both ephemeral and imprecise? Will he promise to bring back from his future negotiations on New Zealand something precise and quantitative, in the form of a completely understandable formula, before we ever get into the Common Market? Is he aware that if he does not he will threaten the leadership of the Tory Party; he will split the Tory Party from top to bottom and bring about the downfall of the Tory Government?

Mr. Rippon: I understand that my hon. Friend is not particularly interested in the terms in forming his judgment whether or not we should enter the Community. On the question of language, the language that I used was precise and in English. On New Zealand, I have explained that different considerations arise, because we cannot settle the matter within the context of the offer of association.

Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that some of us find the Government's adherence to the declaration of intent very amusing, especially after the way in which in a different context they criticised what my right hon. Friend said in relation to the trade unions? If the Government are so concerned about a contractual approach, why should they throw it overboard on such a vital issue as the West Indies agreement on sugar? It brings into doubt the whole attitude of the Government in this regard.

Mr. Rippon: In both respects our attitude has been the same as that of the last Government.

Mr. Lane: While my right hon. and learned Friend is continuing to negotiate firm terms and safeguards—and, I hope, making further progress—will he also go on stressing to the public the great political advantages of an enlarged Community, in contrast, for example, to the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who

was again parading his narrow nationalistic prejudices?

Mr. Rippon: I am not responsible for the views of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). Clearly his speech of yesterday did not correspond with his vote on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in May, 1967.

Mr. Oram: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that what the sugar-producing countries need is not only a guarantee of their sugar market but a diversification of their economy, so that they no longer have to depend on one crop? Did he discuss that aspect of the matter in the recent negotiations? When the Minister goes to the sugar-producing countries, will he be accompanied by the Minister for Overseas Development, so that those countries may be satisfied about this Government's intentions in both aid and trade matters?

Mr. Rippon: I hope that they will be satisfied in both regards. Certainly our purpose is to safeguard their interests, and their interests cover not only quantities and prices of sugar but the whole question of unemployment in those areas and their degree of dependence, in many cases, on other tropical products, such as rum, citrus products and tobacco. We must consider those matters in the broadest way and see that we really safeguard their economies in the years ahead by every means at our command.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Can my right hon. and learned Friend explain how there can be any advantage in associated status for monocultural sugar States? That point has not been explained so far. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has suffered from the dialogue of the deaf in Brussels; are we now to suffer from the monologue of the dumb here?

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend no doubt bears in mind the fact that some developing countries which are now monocultures do not want to remain in that state forever.

Mr. Loughlin: May I refer the Minister back to the question of New Zealand? Has his attention been drawn


to the New Zealand Government's statement, in which it is indicated that even a good transitional agreement would only mean the difference between sudden death and slow strangulation? Is he taking that factor into account when he is negotiating E.E.C. agreements?

Mr. Rippon: All these factors are taken into account. I went to New Zealand and I have had discussions with Sir Keith Holyoake recently, as did my right hon. Friends. Mr. Marshall is arriving here today, and I have no doubt that we shall discuss these matters in the course of the next few days.

Mr. Emery: Will the Minister clear up one point which seems to be slightly confusing? It has been implied that because certain French associated States were not able to maintain their sugar sales to the Community the same thing would automatically happen to any British colonies that became associated States. Will he confirm that as far as the American colonies or territories were concerned no safeguard was given, no statement was made, and no firm intent was given to safeguard the purpose and the interests of their economies?

Mr. Rippon: I am not sure about my hon. Friend's reference to the American States. I am sure that we, within the Community, will safeguard the interests of our clients—if I may put it in that way.

Mr. Emery: I meant "African States".

Mrs. Renée Short: Behind all the euphoria that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unsuccessfully trying to create, is it not clear from the limited information that he has given us today that the housewives of this country will have to face an increase in the cost of food bought in this country once every 10 months—that is what he has told us—in order that we may bring our food prices to the level of the common agricultural policy price? Is it not also clear that they will have to pay more to buy British-produced and home-grown fruit? Has he considered what effect this will have, not only on the cost of living in this country but on the attitude of the trade unions and the whole economic situation, and is it not clear—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has already had three supplementary questions.

Mr. Rippon: In some cases the transitional arrangements provide for us to move up to Community prices and in other cases they provide for us to move down. That is the position in the case of horticultural products.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not clear that whether we are for the Common Market or against it we are equally concerned in this House about the future of under-developed countries in the Commonwealth? Are not the facts of the situation—as opposed to the fears—that my right hon. and learned Friend for the first time has obtained an assurance from the Six that they will treat in future the interests of the sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth as being part of the interests of the enlarged Community and that we ourselves will be there to see that that is done? Is not that a much better guarantee than a quantifiable assurance that would soon be out of date?

Mr. Rippon: I believe that that is true. The difficulty about quantities is that there is a danger that the minimum will come to be regarded subsequently as the maximum, whereas what we require is the long-term safeguarding of these interests.

Mr. Fernyhough: We readily understand the main purpose of the Minister, which is to safeguard what he terms British interests, but does he realise that the overwhelming majority of our people would feel very sick at heart if at the end of the day in safeguarding British interests he sold down the river the interests of the sugar-producing countries and New Zealand? Will he give an assurance that under no circumstances he will have to come to the House as the Government did in 1938 to get an agreement to sell Czechoslovakia down the river?

Mr. Rippon: The whole purpose of these negotiations is to ensure that nobody is sold down the river; indeed, I believe that at the end of the day the British people will be satisfied that the interests of everybody have been adequately protected, as far as we can look ahead in these matters.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr, Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor of the Duchy rose 15 seconds before 3.30, when my Question No. 43 on the Common Market was due to be called. I thought that it was your intention to call me, Mr. Speaker, so I did not raise the matter at the time. Will you rule on that point?

Mr. Speaker: In fact, it was 3.30 when I called the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The following is the circulated statement:

SOLUTIONS AGREED FOR THE TARIFF TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS

In the case of woodpulp and lead bullion (both key materials for industrial processing in the United Kingdom) the Common Tariff will either be completely suspended or equivalent arrangements made so that we are assured of continuing duty free access to these products even beyond the end of the transitional period.

In the case of newsprint we shall share in a Community duty free quota up to the full extent of needs not covered by domestic production. This means that our newspaper publishers will be able to buy the balance of their requirements duty free from the sources they choose including both Canada and Scandinavia. Agreement was also reached on widening the definition of newsprint to include lighter weight newsprint; otherwise some of our newspapers who use this type of newsprint would have had to pay a Common Tariff of 12 per cent.

In the case of phosphorus it has been agreed that we shall not start to apply the Common Tariff even at a reduced rate until 1977 and that it would be open to us then to apply for either suspension of the tariff or duty free quotas.

The remaining products on our list fall into two groups. In the case of plywood, arrangements have been made, including a duty free quota for certain specialised types of coniferous plywood which should continue to allow in most of our imports duty free. And for the wattle extract used by our tanners the Common Tariff will be cut by two thirds, down to 3 per cent. These arrangements for plywood and wattle extract are not limited to the transitional period.

In the case of the remaining products, silicon carbide, ferro chrome, ferro silicon, refined lead and zinc and aluminium it was established that we should be able to secure all or nearly all our needs duty free either from increased United Kingdom production or from other suppliers in the enlarged Community. And in the case of lead and zinc we shall be participating in existing Community tariff quotas which it has been agreed to adjust to take account of enlargement.

Moreover in the case of certain of these products it has been agreed specifically that if the supply position were to change it would be open to us to apply for duty quotas.

MOTOR INDUSTRY (TARIFFS)

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about my recent reference to the unilateral abatement of tariffs.
It was suggested by a speaker at a party conference that the Government should consider the abatement of the existing tariffs which protect the motor industry as a means of dealing with the excessive wage settlements recently reached in that industry. I confirmed that I had that under consideration as one of a range of possible measures open to the Government. I also made it perfectly clear that there was no question of a decision having been taken. We on this side of the House have long said that we would be ready to consider reductions of tariffs, where appropriate, in order of heighten competition.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be glad to have some conclusion brought to the confusion over the last few days, which led to variations in share prices on the Stock Exchange, to which he himself referred? May I ask him two questions? First, what estimates have the Government made of the effect of unilateral removal of tariffs on the level of imports, the balance of payments, the level of unemployment, manufacturing investment in the engineering and motor industries and on confidence in the industry, which is our greatest exporter and has suffered from all Governments over the last ten years by being used to some extent as a regulator of the economy?
Second, does he still stand firm to the statement which he made to The Times, reported on Saturday, in which he said:
I would obviously have consultations with the car industry if I came to conclusions on the matter."?
Is he saying that there would be no consultations with the industry until he himself had reached a conclusion? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is responsible to the House for his policy


and should report to the House on these matters.

Mr. Davies: In the first place, in my view, there was absolutely no confusion. In the second place, such variations in share prices as apparently took place were minimal. The effect of the removal of tariffs on a variety of indicators of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned is, of course, part of the study operation. I said that we were undertaking a study: we are undertaking a study and we will continue. As for consultations with the motor industry, those would take place at a time when the Government have reached some kind of conclusion. I would regard it as being entirely unsatisfactory to go into such discussions without any clear mind at all.

Mr. Longden: Will my right hon. Friend not be deterred by these wholly subjective, partisan and generally ignorant criticisms from continuing to administer salutary shocks to inefficient managements who, if language means anything, are primarily responsible for these inflationary wage settlements?

Mr. Davies: Yes, I can give that undertaking. Apart from the very many interests, which I have firmly at heart, as much as anyone does, of the motor industry, there has been this really great concern about the movement in wages recently.

Mr. Atkinson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that a fair interpretation of his comments over the weekend would be that some additional competition was necessary in the car industry? Therefore, is he not suggesting that there should be an increase in the number of cars imported? Would he therefore agree that the logic of all that is that he is now saying to the country that it would be patriotic for car buyers now to buy foreign cars?

Mr. Davies: What an extraordinarily complicated bit of logic that was. I am carrying out a study to see what it is wise to do in all the circumstances.

Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what most patriotic people in this country are asking is not why the Minister has discussed reducing tariffs at this stage but why this question was

not discussed some months ago at the time when highly inflationary wage negotiations were in progress which could therefore have influenced these wage negotiations in the national interests?

Mr. Davies: These matters have, of course, been under study for a considerable time. The problems involved in taking any such action are very great, and I have not sought to minimise them, but if the circumstances justified them I would equally not hesitate to take them.

Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his ruminations on the abolition of tax will have been warmly welcomed by the American-controlled companies which would gladly import into Britain greater quantities of cars, to the detriment of employment and of the level of wages in Dagenham, Linwood, Liverpool and Coventry? In these circumstances, would he realise that his reactionary, doctrinaire policies threaten to restore the depression in the motor industry which existed after the abolition of the McKenna duties?

Mr. Davies: No, I think that that is entirely incorrect from beginning to end. The American motor industry undoubtedly has a primary interest in the successful use of its own investments in this country above all things.

Mr. William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people, including many hon. Members on this side, would agree, as a general principle, that where an industry with tariff protection uses this hidden price subsidy to pay inflated wage claims without an increase in productivity, this damages the economy and consequently should be deplored?

Mr. Davies: This is a fundamental factor in the consideration which I am giving.

Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in normal times we on this bench could support him and welcome his conversion, or his attempt to convert the Tory Party, to the principles of freer trade? But is he aware that off-the-cuff major pronouncements of this kind at Scottish Tory Party conferences are apt to be construed as examples of instant Government?

Mr. Davies: It was certainly not an initial pronouncement of a policy. This


matter has been a stated element of Conservative policy for a very long time.

Mr. Michael Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman says that the line of consideration which he indicated in his speech the other day was so wise, will he tell us which other industries he is now considering for using tariff policy to affect wage claims in those industries?

Mr. Davies: I am considering it over a very wide field of industries. I have no intention of stating a schedule of industries, but clearly those which are behind a considerable tariff wall are naturally the ones most concerned.

Mr. Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman claimed at the weekend in one of his comments upon it that he was using this as a deterrent, surely he should tell us which industries he is considering?

Mr. Davies: When I have an industry to deter I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman know.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend clear up a point which has been nuzzling me a little? Does the fact that the Government are engaged on this individual and national study of tariffs mean that they have decided, after all, not to go into the Common Market—[Laughter.]—since if they have, all our tariff arrangements will be automatically regulated by the Community and its common external tariff policy?

Mr. Davies: This has nothing whatever to do with the question of our entry into the Community. [Interruption.] We must make our policies as things stand at present.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that the only circumstances in which he will move in this House, which is the right place to do it, for a reduction in the tariffs of the British motor car industry is as part of an agreement with the other countries concerned, who have their own motor car industries, both Europe and the United States—[Interruption.]—that there will be a similar reduction in those countries against British motor cars?
Is he aware that this has been the policy of successive Governments, at the Kennedy Round and earlier? Or is he

saying, on the other hand, that he is prepared to give away this bargaining card as well to other countries with nothing in return?

Mr. Davies: The plain fact is that the Government have complete autonomy in this matter and can act as they feel inclined.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Other Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The question—

An Hon. Member: Wait to be called.

Mr. Wilson: I was too overcome by the right hon. Gentleman's answer to wait for you to call me, Mr. Speaker.
The question I asked the right hon. Gentleman was for an undertaking. I did not ask whether the Government were free to act in a dictatorial way and then announce their decision outside the House. Whatever the Government's powers may or may not be, will the right hon. Gentleman now give that undertaking?

Mr. Davies: No, I will not. [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Leadbitter: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the progress and nature of the Common Market negotiations, the threat to important interests in the developing countries, the increasing concern in the United Kingdom, and the need for Parliament to examine the possibility of a political commitment affecting the future of the people whose interests, rights and privileges it is the function of this House to protect.
Nothing is more evident from the statements that we have heard in the last one-and-a-quarter hours that there is a need for the House to seek to reassert its authority over the Executive. It is my view that when matters are raised concerning people with whom we have an


allegiance and moral obligation, and our own people, we should make it clear that the Executive is beginning to use language which is usurping the authority of Parliament.
I remind the House that no major political party has a mandate to take this country into the Common Market. The Conservative Party manifesto at the last General Election went no further than to say that the Tories were concerned solely with a commitment to negotiate, and their manifesto used the words "no more and no less" in regard to that commitment. The Labour Party made it clear that negotiations for entering the E.E.C. were provisionally determined by an acceptance of a plain commitment that the essential interests of this country and of the Commonwealth should be safeguarded.
I raise this matter at this stage not because there has been a determination to ignore Parliament—there has been sufficient questioning to show that our ability to raise these matters with Ministers has not been withheld—but because during the past few months there has been a fundamental change in the language used by the Government over this matter. We are no longer negotiating but accelerating the pace at which we are expecting to get in to the Market, if not at any price, then certainly in my view at a price which the Government have not been given authority to offer.
The language began to change last October, when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, on the 26th, that the lack of enthusiasm for entry among the British people was not a factor which should be regarded seriously. From then on it was the duty of the House of Commons to watch progress on this matter with great care, for if it was not a factor which the Government would regard seriously, our vigilance became imperative.
The House has debated this matter on only four occasions in the last six years. The last Common Market debate took place on 21st and 22nd January of this year. However, we were then debating the subject from a point of view quite different from the one in which I am raising it now, for I am now asking Parliament to become alert to the sort

of attitude which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is adopting. [Interruption.] That attitude is bound to put into the minds of back benchers a fear—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Motion. There is a convention that when speaking to a Motion of this nature hon. Members should restrict their remarks to the actual point of the submission.

Mr. Leadbitter: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I must, however, point to the fear which is bound to be created in the minds of back benchers when right hon. Gentlemen opposite take the sort of attitude that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is adopting.
The Government are, of course, expected to govern, but in a democracy like ours Parliament is expected to watch the Government with vigilance. It is not the function of Parliament to stand aside when matters of great moment are under consideration. It is not good enough for back benchers to wait until a three-line Whip is imposed to achieve the desired response. When no mandate exists to compromise the position of Parliament, our laws and our constitutional rights, the House of Commons and not the Government is supreme.
Parliament has been patient long enough. The language of negotiation has altered dramatically, even in the last few days. The pursuit of terms and safeguards on matters affecting Britain and the Commonwealth has changed course in terms of the language used when speaking of promises and understandings—[Interruption.]—and many of us feel that the moves of recent days—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the time of the House. I enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman, but an important debate is due to begin and I must ask him to be brief.

Mr. Leadbitter: I accept your request for me to be brief, Mr. Speaker, but, with respect, I must remind you that it was not my fault that certain Ministers had to waste the time of the House. The matter which I am raising is of great importance to the nation. I am anxious not to delay the House, but, after all, I have been speaking for only two or three minutes—[Interruption.]—or maybe four or five—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Member that it is much nearer 10 minutes.

Mr. Leadbitter: That persuades me, Mr. Speaker, to follow your direction again and to seek to be briefer, because if I am approaching 10 minutes, that is the point at which I should be coming to a conclusion. I wish to be co-operative, but I do not want the House to feel that, by restricting my remarks too much, I am less concerned about the issue which I have brought before it.
I take the point that the Motion is specific. It deals with matters concerning the interests, rights and privileges of the people. It is specific in the sense that it deals with the increasing concern in the country and pinpoints a threat to important interests in the developing countries.
It is important in the sense that the stage management and euphoria of last week is, towards the end of this week, culminating with the meeting between the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and President Pompidou. All of us have a sense of fear that the acceleration of movements is providing a commitment to the Common Market which we feel that those we represent are not willing to accept at this stage. The matter is urgent because during the next few weeks we may be asked to deal with a situation in the House when a political commitment has already been made.
Mr. Speaker, with those few words, and bearing in mind that I have had to cut short a good deal of what I wanted to say, and because in essence it deals with the whole way of life in this country, I ask that the Motion be considered favourably. I thank the House for giving me its attention.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
the progress and nature of the Common Market negotiations, the threat to important interests in the developing countries, the increasing concern in the United Kingdom, and the need for Parliament to examine the possibility of a political commitment affecting the future of the people whose interests, rights and privileges it is the function of this House to protect.

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to move the Motion.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the various factors to which the hon. Member referred in his submission, but I am debarred from giving reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the matter. I am aware of the deep interest which the hon. Member and many other hon. and right hon. Members feel in this matter and I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member had to say, but I have decided that I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had notice of another application, which I will take first. Mr. Atkinson.

MOTOR INDUSTRY (TARIFFS)

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the refusal of the Prime Minister to take any action to restore confidence in the British motor industry following the contradictory statements made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment concerning import tariffs.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has left the Chamber. I wanted to refer to one or two of his comments. I am not insensitive to time or to the importance of the debate which is about to follow. Therefore, I make only one or two brief comments, and I hope that my brevity will not undermine the importance of the issue I am raising.
The first point relates to an answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has just given; that is, that the Government have complete autonomy in the whole business of import tariffs. I suggest that that is not so. Surely it is


the House of Commons that has autonomy in finance matters of this kind. It is utterly wrong for the Secretary of State to claim that the Government have autonomy to fix import charges or tariffs generally concerning industry. He is misleading the House and should withdraw that statement, because it is totally inaccurate and an insult to Members of Parliament who adhere to the rules of the House and an insult to the power which the people give to Members of Parliament when they elect them to put a point of view on their behalf.
The first point about this matter is the serious situation in which we are now placed relative to the car industry. A very important matter arises on Thursday. It is the intention of the Opposition and of the Labour Party to inaugurate a campaign for a reduction in purchase tax. This is vitally affected by statements made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. It is the intention of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) to move that purchase tax on motor cars be reduced from 36⅔ per cent. to 30 per cent. For a motor car costing£800 this means a reduction of more than£50. This debate cannot proceed adequately and intelligently unless the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is prepared to make a further statement in the House and to give some details of his thoughts about the whole question of import tariffs, without which it will be impossible for the House to come to a conclusion on Thursday when on a vote we shall be asked to judge whether purchase tax on motor cars should be reduced by 6⅔ per cent.
This is a very serious question affecting the motor car industry and the many thousands of workers which it employs. Yet on Thursday we shall be voting in the absence of further information, and a decision will be further complicated by the answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given to supplementary questions this afternoon.
I submit to you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important that we should now have an emergency debate to clear up some of the answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given following his

statement over the weekend and the statement of the Secretary of State for Employment. The contradiction in the whole of this area of Government policy means that on Thursday we cannot come to a conclusion which will do justice to the car industry. It is necessary to have a debate as soon as possible.
My second point relates to the increased competition to which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has referred. He complains that my logic is extremely complicated. But surely, in the simplest manner, this is the argument that he used over the weekend. If he is to give an advantage to importers of foreign cars over British manufacturers, he is saying that it is the patriotic duty of people to buy foreign cars instead of British-manufactured cars. That is the element of competition for which he is arguing in the case of motor-car manufacturer. It is up to him to come to the House to clear up this matter and say clearly that that is not the Government's intention and that they are not arguing that it is the patriotic thing to do to buy foreign motor cars to cut the wage demands of workers employed in our car industry.
Further on that subject, we have the experience of the cotton industry and many others that where foreign products have been introduced on the basis of lower tariffs, it has cut back investment and ultimately murdered those industries in a way that I am certain that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not wish to see happen to the British motor industry. There is obviously a tendency to cut investment, and we have seen many examples of this in post-war years.
Finally, there is the whole question of the hysterical attitude towards wages generally. Most hon. Members opposite have no understanding of what the wage levels in industry are. We should get away from the hysteria in talking about abnormal wage increases as though they are crippling industry. Many of us on this side pay our respects to trade union negotiators who are doing their best to lift the level of demand in Britain and to create a possible setting for increased growth.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for allowing me these few minutes to say a few words as to why


we should have an emergency debate before Thursday's debate on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the Prime Minister to take any action to restore confidence in the British motor industry following the contradictory statements made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment concerning import tariffs.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in informing me of his intention to make this application.
As I have recently said, under Standing Order No. 9 the matter is now left to Mr. Speaker, and I am debarred from giving reasons. I have considered this matter carefully, both before the hon. Member made his application and also during the course of his speech. It is a matter on which I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong feelings. However, I have decided that I cannot submit his application to the House.

STANDING ORDER No. 9

Mr. Paget: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is a point of order, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Paget: It is in fact a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have indicated that you would take applications to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 in order of priority of giving notice. I urge you not to establish that as a precedent. The whole point of applications under Standing Order No. 9 is to provide an opportunity for the House to discuss an urgent matter as and when it arises.
If it is reduced to a matter of giving notice, hon. Members who have given you notice will find themselves obligated to make the types of speech which we have now heard after Question Time. It will not get us anywhere. We shall then reach the point at which a further application is futile, because from sheer bore-

dom the House will be reduced to fewer than 40 Members.
I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, to raise the quite simple point that where the situation as to sugar was altered in the process of negotiations and without consulting the House, the effect within the sugar-producing countries was to produce very large and immediate financial losses. There is now no point in doing that, because the time is lost.
However, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, not to make notice in advance a question of priorities on this Standing Order. It will destroy the effectiveness of the Order if you do. It must be an application made spontaneously when the problem arises, and that is normally at the point where the Minister makes his statement. It is not possible to give notice in advance when that happens.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for raising this point of order. I am bound by the Standing Orders of the House. Standing Order No. 9(3) provides:
A Member intending to propose to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this order shall give notice to Mr. Speaker by twelve o'clock, if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour. If the urgency is not so known he shall give notice as soon thereafter as is practicable.
In the circumstances, I was bound to take first the hon. Gentleman who made the first application and then the hon. Gentleman who made the second application—the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). If after the hon. and learned Gentleman first rose and I told him that that was not the moment for him to make his application he had then passed me a note saying that something urgent had arisen, I would have regarded that as prior notice.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In the course of my application I raised the question of the Government's autonomy in the raising or lowering of tariffs. Can I, through you, seek an answer as to whether the Secretary of State was correct in saying that the Government have an autonomy in this and can do as they wish?

Mr. Speaker: That may be a very good point, but it is not a point for me. The hon. Gentleman must pursue it in the other ways which are open to him.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — CONSUMER PROTECTION

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I beg to move,
That this House, noting the resolution unanimously carried on 10th May relating to the increase in the price of basic foods and the setting up of an organisation for consumer protection, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to announce their plans for this new organisation and trusts that it will embrace all the powers of the Consumer Council.
Time for this debate has been eroded by important statements. Therefore, in the interests of hon. Members who I know wish to speak, I shall seek to curtail what I have to say.
The Motion arises from the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) on 10th May. In that debate my hon. Friend gave details of the steep rise in the price of basic foods and called for an organisation for consumer protection. It was an important debate in which several thoughtful contributions were made, although it ended with a very disappointing speech by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I regret that the Minister is not in his place today, but he has explained to me that he cannot be here owing to another engagement.
When my hon. Friend's Motion was put there was general agreement with it and not one dissenting voice. It is so recorded—
"Question put and agreed to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 101.]
We thought it possible that the Government had at last relented and seen a little sense and that the pleas of my hon. Friends, and indeed of hon. Members opposite, had had some effect.
However, it became apparent on the following day that nothing had changed on Tuesday, 11th May, we were back to the old slogans—"Stand on your own

two feet. Shop around. Competition will solve all the problems."
There is a consistency about the Minister, even if it tends to get rather tedious. However, he and his right hon. Friends must realise that when the House of Commons approves a Motion it means something. It is not to be flouted in the way the Minister did on Tuesday. When I asked him what action the Government proposed, he used these words:
Although the House did not divide on the Motion, I listened carefully to the points raised in what was, after all, a private Member's MOtion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 189.]
I regret to have to say that I regard this as executive arrogance of the worse kind. Do not the Government realise that the majority of us are private Members, that when a private Member raises a subject in this House, it is not to be taken lightly, and that when the House accepts a Motion proposed by an hon. Member the Executive should take action on that Motion? That is the very basis on which our democratic system is based. The Government Amendment, far from heeding the will of the House, compounds the insult to the House and makes it clear that they have decided to do nothing.
If it was the case—I am not suggesting that it was—that the Government could not get sufficient Members to the House to divide on 10th May, that only shows with what little interest the Government view the serious problem of rapidly increasing prices. Whichever way we look at it last week's debate exposed the Government's total failure to grapple with this problem. We are entitled to view with some scepticism the Minister's claim that the Government are concerned about the rising price of food and other essential goods, because we also remember his statement in this House on 29th July, 1966, when he was on the back benches on this side of the House when he said:
The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either the agricultural or the fishing industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
Today we are seeing in action the policy in which the Minister of Agriculture believes, a policy of high food prices. Despite the promise at the General Election, put into final form on 16th June by the Prime Minister, and which more than anything else won the Conservative Party


that election, the Government have deliberately taken steps which must have the inevitable effect of increasing food prices. Blaming the trade unions trying to make them a scapegoat is the ultimate hypocrisy. What they are doing and what they have in the pipeline makes further wage demands inevitable and they must face this.
Inflation is the greatest problem facing the Government and this is certainly not the way to tackle it. The record of the Government since the Prime Minister's pledge has been deplorable. Far from taking action to hold or reduce prices their policies have made increases certain. Far from seeking to protect the consumer they are the Government which has abandoned consumer protection.
Let us consider what they have done. First, they abolished the early warning system. This gave the Minister notice of price increases, and gave his officials the opportunity to advise whether such increases were justified in their view. The officials in the Ministry—and I know them well and have a great respect for them—have built up considerable expertise in this field. I could speak at length of my experience with the early warning system, but I will desist.
Secondly, the Government abolished the Consumer Council. Excellent work was being done by the Council under Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd. When I was the Minister there were times when I felt that the Consumer Council was a bit of a nuisance, times when I was overwhelmed with work and I felt that it was badgering me a bit too much. What that proved was that the Council was doing an effective job. Looking back at my experience I can say that Dame Elizabeth and her colleagues were doing a good job in the interests of the housewives. Here again, groups of skilled people have been disbanded but I believe that the Council will have to return in some form or another.
Nothing would please me more than for the Minister to get up tonight and to say, "We have changed our minds". There is a great deal of virtue at times in being able to change one's mind. After all, it was a Conservative Government which set up the Council. I would remind the Front Bench of what their pre-election guide said. It said:

In 1963 the Conservative Government set up the Consumer Council which has since proved to be a powerful and influential spokesman for the interests of the consumer,
They were ready to claim credit for it when they thought it might win a few votes. The Council proved to be powerful and influential and its record over six years was impressive. Was it a case of proving too powerful and too influential for some friends of the Conservative Party in industry?
The Amendment says that the Government will rely upon other organisations to protect the consumer. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will say which public and private organisations. I have a great regard for the Consumer Association but I would point out that no one was harsher in its criticism of the abolition of the Consumer Council than the Consumer Association, so that must not be called in aid.
Thirdly, the Government abolished the Prices and Incomes Board—

Mr. John Gorst: rose—

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I must get on with my speech. We have lost a good deal of time. The hon. Gentleman must try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. The Government abolished the Prices and Incomes Board which did some first-rate work under a distinguished Conservative, Mr. Aubrey Jones, to whom great credit is due. I am afraid that he is a different type of Conservative from those whom we have on the Front Bench today. He did a job honestly and ably. He was not a "yes" man. If anyone doubts the value of references to the Board on prices they should read some of the reports it produced on tea, margarine, bread, beer.
The Minister has written the Board off with some references to gimickry and bureaucracy. I say that the reference on retail price margins which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and I made to the Board was not a gimmick. It was made after a good deal of though and if hon. Gentlemen opposite will refer to the Food Manufacturers' Federation, with which I discussed this reference, they will find that the Federation supported it fully and was anxious that it should be fully processed.
After all their promises the Government have gratuitously abandoned all of


the machinery for protecting the consumer. Although the Minister of Agriculture admitted to me last week that the Board found from time to time that the increases were not justified. He agreed that the Board did a good job and added:
…from time to time increases were not justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 95.]
If certain industries increased their prices without justification, when they knew that there would be scrutiny of them by the Board, what are they likely to do when they know that they have a Minister who does not care a rap? It is naive in such circumstances to talk loftily about the virtues of competition. It is the consumer who is squeezed all the time.
There is no moral value in competition. The ultimate object of competition is to make a profit, not to help the consumer. In a mixed economy of course we accept that we must have competition. It has its part to play. It is not only what the Government have abolished which worries us, it is the other measures taken by them which will have the effect of increasing prices. We must bear in mind the promise to bring down prices. All the following measures will increase them.
There are the levy proposals, which will deliberately increase the price of meat and flour, which means the price of bread, and the price of some milk products. Government spokesmen have brushed aside this increase as something insignificant. It is not small and it is in addition to the rising trend of increases. I know that they said they would do this before the election, it was part of Conservative Party policy. They also said that they would hold prices. What they did not tell the electorate was that these two pledges were incompatible, that they could not hold down prices and at the same time introduce the levy system. Then we had the Annual Price Review which this year places a larger burden on the consumer than ever before. It means an increase in the price of milk, milk products and sugar.
I understand that there are to be sharp increases in the price of some baby foods as a result of the additional cost of milk.
I have read in some newspaper reports that the increase will be as much as 25 per cent. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether this is correct. We are deeply concerned about the effect of increased prices on the older people. Here we have a blow at the babies. We want to know more about this matter from the Government before the end of the debate.
I should be the last to suggest that the task of a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is easy. I found it an extremely difficult and arduous office to hold. There are factors which are beyond the control of a Minister of Food. He must take into account such matters as fluctuations in the cost of imported materials. But he must satisfy himself that the food-producing industry is making an effort to absorb part of the increased costs. The Minister of Agriculture does not believe in taking any action at all.
One thing which the Government have done which they claim is making a contribution to reducing prices is to cut selective employment tax. What significant effect has it had? My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) said in the debate last Monday that the effect would be negligible. He gave the figures. Certain firms—and they are some of the best firms, like Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury—published lists of price reductions. But, having studied the lists, however welcome they might be, one could not see that they would have a significant effect on rising prices.
The Minister—and I must quote him because it is important in the context of this debate—said a week ago:
Let me give another example of competition working. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget speech the halving of the rates of S.E.T., there was an immediate response by a number of leading multiple food chains and department stores. They all tried to steal a march on each other to get customers into their shops. This is what competition is about."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 98.]
We saw a graphic picture of Lord Sieff and Sir Jack Cohen on the pavements pushing the customers into their shops as a result of the Chancellor's measures. The Minister of Agriculture is living in cloud cuckoo land. We must get the matter in the right perspective. I do not say that the cut in S.E.T. has made no


contribution, but the right hon. Gentleman built it up out of all proportion to its real value. The fact is that prices are rising at 10 per cent. per annum. Let hon. Members study the details given in HANSARD last Thursday as supplied in a Written Answer to me at column 162. Prices have gone up markedly since March.
While, the Minister has been hard at it abolishing things, he has been advising us to shop round. I must comment on this advice, because he gives it at every Question Time and in almost every speech he makes on food matters. There is a touch of unreality about it. It may be possible and prudent for some people to shop round in certain circumstances. But what about people who live in villages? What about people who live in the countryside, with whom the Minister of Agriculture must be concerned? What about the elderly and the infirm? What about mothers with young children? I must point out to the Government Front Bench that there are many housewives who do not have nannies to look after their children. There are housewives and mothers who just cannot follow the Minister's advice to shop round. They have not the time or the facilities to do so.
The price of the food in the weekly shopping basket has become intolerable for many housewives since the election. They are unable to buy many of the things which they could afford to buy 12 months ago when the election pledge was made that prices would be held.
The Government have been in office for nearly 12 months. They must begin to shoulder the responsibility for their actions. It is no use their blaming past Governments for their own misdeeds. They have deliberately decided, as an act of policy, to return to free-for-all competition. We ask them seriously and sincerely to pause before it is too late; this is the object of our Motion. There are actions—not compulsory measures, but actions in relation to co-operation with the food sectors of industry—which they can take at once. One would like to feel that the Minister had invited the baby food manufacturers to his office for a discussion about the increase of 25 per cent. in baby food prices. Has he done so? I am sure that large sectors of the food-producing industry would be prepared to co-operate—it would be very

much in their own interests—if they were given the opportunity.
I am beginning to mistrust the philosophy of the Minister of Agriculture. I can summarise it in one sentence. He said on 11th May:
Under Conservative prosperity peaches will he eaten much more than before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 193.]
What people want is stability in the price of the basic necessities of life—meat, bread, milk, rent. This peaches-and-pigeons philosophy is so unreal as to be farcical and grotesque. We appeal to the Government to institute studies into the whole field of food prices before it is too late.
We must charge the Government with failure. Last week, the people spoke clearly in the local government elections. Let the Government therefore change their policies forthwith. Let them live up to their promises or make room for a Government which has the confidence of the country.

5.27. p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move to leave out from 'House' to end of the Question and add instead thereof:
'welcomes the determination of Her Majesty's Government to protect the interests of consumers through greater competition and through the efforts of existing organisations both public and private'.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) asked me why we did not vote against last Monday's Motion. It was not at all clear what the Motion meant, particularly in relation to the organisation proposed in it. The question of an organisation to scrutinise and check prices was never spelled out. No one in the debate spoke about it. There was only one paragraph in the speech of the mover of the Motion, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), describing what he had in mind. I propose to quote it so that there is no error:
In these circumstances I feel that the Government, in fairness to the housewife, should set up some consumer protection organisation to watch food prices, to check the validity of any increases which the Government or the public might refer to such a body, and to make recommendations to the Government or Parliament for action. I have no exact details in mind for such a body, but I


feel that it should contain among its members a number of practical housewives who, let us face it, know more about shopping problems than the whole of the Government and Parliament put together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 48.]
Is that the Opposition's policy? No other hon. Member opposite mentioned the organisation at all. Not one of them believed in it. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) said that he was in favour of the last Government's prices and incomes policy. He is a very brave man. I congratulate him.

Mr. George Wallace: I deliberately left the question of the organisation wide open simply in order to invite the Government's co-operation. I do not pretend to know all the answers, but I know that I have the housewives behind me.

Mr. Ridley: I want to show that the hon. Gentleman's omission was quite an important one. We well remember the prices and incomes policy of the last Government and how it split the Labour Party down the middle. We well remember how more than half of that party hated it from the very beginning. We must now ask the party opposite, has it been converted? Why did not hon. Members opposite vote against their hon. Friend's motion last Monday? Why did not the Labour Party come out and vote down that dangerous Motion to bring in another such incomes policy? Presumably hon. Members opposite will vote with us tonight.
There is a further difficulty arising from last week's Motion. The Motion by the hon. Member for Norwich, North spoke of
an organisation for consumer protection with powers to scrutinise and check prices of essential services".
The Motion today, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, speaks of "an organisation for consumer protection". It is not speaking of "powers to scrutinise and check prices". [An HON. MEMBER: But with "powers of the Consumer Council."] I am going to talk about the Consumer Council in a short while, but the Opposition have got to make up their minds whether they want this Consumer Council they are talking about with powers to check prices, or not, because this is at the crux of the issue. Would

they return to a policy of compulsory control of prices and incomes or not? As everybody in the House knows, we cannot have a compulsory prices policy without having a compulsory, statutory incomes policy. The Opposition have not made clear what they want, and their Motion last Monday was not worth voting against.
Is this to be a debate about prices and incomes, or consumer protection? Consumer protection is a related but separate subject apart from control of prices themselves. Consumer protection is about standards and quality, and I want to talk for a short time about both those subjects because they are implicitly covered by the Motion.
First of all, we have two basic beliefs which the Opposition do not appear to share. The first is that large increases of wages beyond the productivity obtained push up prices. The second is that competition is the best way to keep those rises in prices to the absolute minimum consistent with investment in the future. The right hon. Gentleman believes that there is no moral value in competition—no moral value at all, he has just said. I am going to give him some figures to prove that that is not so.
Starting with the question of wages.
There is a danger that, under the pressure of steeply rising incomes, unit costs will go up more rapidly and we may move on to a much steeper trend of inflation than we have known in the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1970; Vol. 799, col. 1224.]
Those are not my words, but words of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). They are true.
Over the calendar year, 1970, the wage and salary bill in this country rose by£3,175 million in total. The gross pretax company profits in the same period rose by only£81 million. In fact, profits after tax, which is the money available to industry for investment, actually fell during last year. This was not just a freak year. Over the whole period from 1964 to 1970 the wage and salary bill in this country rose by£7,782 million. The gross pre-tax company profit rose by only£428 million. So it must be patently and abundantly clear to all that there is no scope for these wage increases to come out of profits. Therefore, they have to come out of increased prices.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Just to get my own mind absolutely clear. The profits to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which are taxable, refer to the calendar year earnings up to December, 1969, not December, 1970, because we are not yet taxing profits made up to December, 1970?

Mr. Ridley: That is correct. That is why I gave figures for the longer period, the six-year period, because they bear out the point that the increase in company profits is very small before tax and probably negative after tax. Figures for after tax are difficult to obtain.
The point is that if wages go up by sums of that amount there can be no other possible consequence than that prices must follow and, indeed, the share of the gross national product which was taken by pre-tax gross company profits in 1964 was 15·6 per cent., and in 1970 it was only 11·7 per cent. So the share of profits in the economy has been dropping, and this is resulting in an ever-weakening position relatively in relation to our competitors and in relation to investment. And there one has it. The increased wages which we have been paying ourselves in this country have come partly out of profits and investment, and they have come out of higher prices as, indeed, they had to.
I now want to come to the question of competition, in which the right hon. Gentleman believes that there is no moral value. During last year, wages rose by 14 per cent. The total wage bill rose by 14 per cent. and prices rose by 8 per cent. Have the Opposition ever considered why it is that the total of prices did not rise by as much as the total of wages? Because if competition did not work, one would have expected that wages and prices would have followed each other by equal amounts. That was not the case, because wages were absorbed, partly through the profit margin, partly through increased efficiency, and partly through the process of competition.
I find it extraordinary, how two-faced the Opposition are about competition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) is always absolutely rigorous in his demands that we should promote investment. When we do something which affects the motor car industry or the steel industry or any other

industry there are howls of protest from his hon. Friends. It would seem to me that the Opposition must make up their minds whether they believe in competition or not. I pay the tribute to the right hon. Gentleman that obviously he does.

Mr. Gorst: Would it not be true to add also that there has been a failure in competition in one respect, and that is in the area of the supply of labour, which is still a monopoly? This is why the imbalance to which my hon. Friend has referred has taken place.

Mr. Ridley: I think there are imperfections in true competition in the labour market, but I would prefer not to stray on to that ground because I want to say some important things about competition in prices and industry.
We believe that the area for action by the Government is where competition is weak or imperfect or less effective than it might be. It is not just a question of monopolies. We would define it as extending the activities of Government to promoting competition wherever it is weak, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in his statement of 17th December. We hope to continue some useful consultations and discussions which we are having with interested parties on ways to improve the economy, and that that will lead to legislation on monopolies and restrictive practices next Session. Reform of the Monopolies Commission will mean an organisation which scrutinises and will check some prices where competition is weak.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I wonder what happens when competition becomes so strong that one firm pushes up a lot of prices and the monopolistic position then affects production—which is the monopoly position. Do the Government then intend bringing in some private competitor or another? This could become a continuous process back and forth.

Mr. Ridley: When that happens, it becomes a monopoly. There are various remedies open to us. One is to increase foreign competition. Another is to bring new entrants into industry. Another is direct control of monopoly prices. These are all available, but it would be better, as the hon. Gentleman will agree, to try


to prevent monopolies arising, because they are difficult to deal with once they do.
I will tell the House the actions which the Government have taken to promote competition in the short period they have been in office. They have referred the rope industry to the Monopolies Commission. They have refused, after a reference, permission for the British Sidac Transparent Paper merger They have allowed foreign steel to compete with British steel for shipbuilding plate in the shipbuilding market. They have freed the scrap export market and the coal import market. All these actions will lead to greater competition. The Government have made estate agents compete in their fees and are approaching the question of the professions in the light of the Monopolies Commission's Report on that subject. As my right hon. Friend said today they have considered whether tariff reductions can contribute. We have produced the Bank of England paper on competition in banking which has been welcomed throughout the House, and we have brought into existence the second force airline.
I should now like to announce—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have increased competition, but does he not agree, particularly with expensive consumer durables, that there need to be rules, recognised by everybody, and an effective referee? In doing away with the Consumer Council, he has left out that important part of effective competition.

Mr. Ridley: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will say something about that when I come to deal with consumer protection.
I should like to announce my new set of references to the Monopolies Commission. The first one is of the traditional type and will cause no great surprise. The boot and shoe machinery industry, which might be a monopoly industry, is to be referred to the Monopolies Commission. Secondly, the breakfast cereals industry—cornflakes and so on, which are vital to the housewife—is an industry whose structure may be leading to abuse through excessive price rises. This is right on the point of the Motion, and I am referring the in-

dustry to the Monopolies Commission. There is, we believe, a connection between the structure of the industry and the prices which have been charged. Thirdly, we intend to make a general reference, of the type which has occasionally been made in the past, into practices in general, not related to any specific industry. That is the reference of parallel pricing and price leadership, an area where study will be useful, and we hope for advice on how to sharpen competition as a result of the Monopolies Commission's work.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will it be within the terms of reference for the Monopolies Commission to look at the costs that arise with breakfast cereals from extremely expensive coloured packaging and coloured printing?

Mr. Ridley: The terms of reference are usually very wide, and it will be for the Commission to decide. Fourthly, we intend to make our first reference of a nationalised industry. Under Section 2(2) of the 1948 Act, the practices of the gas and electricity supply industries over connection charges can be examined. The two industries have kindly given their consent to co-operate; we have no power to force them to do so. This problem is an old one which arises basically out of the monopoly position of the electricity supply industry in the supply of lighting for houses. It is an appropriate subject for the Commission to investigate so that competition can take place despite the monopoly position.
Three out of four of these references are concerned directly with prices. I do not want to prejudge them, but in making this announcement we believe that the references to the Commission will have a direct bearing on prices. This makes five monopoly references in under one year by this Government, which compares favourably with the three monopoly references in the last three years of the Labour Government.

Mr. Edmund Dell: There are one or two questions which I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, the answers to which will affect the debate. He said that under the legislation to be introduced the Monopolies Commission would check certain prices, but he was not clear on the circumstances in which


this power may be exercised. Will it be limited simply to the 33⅓per cent. situation, or is it intended to define market power more widely? Secondly, are the references on boot and shoe machinery and breakfast cereals to be of the normal duration of about two years, or short references, to the possibility of which the Secretary of State referred in his statement in December? Lastly, is the general reference likely to take about two years and would the recommendations, if necessary, be implemented by legislation?

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to take up more time, but I cannot help doing so if I am to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's question. On the general point, we have not yet made clear to the House the substance of the forthcoming legislation on the Monopolies Commission. I am not able to answer the question as to whether the criterion for a reference will be one-third, but I will inform him when we have made decisions. We hope that the cereal prices reference will be a quick one. The boot and shoe machinery reference is a standard monopoly reference and will perhaps take longer than the other one, but I hope that the Monopolies Commission will be as expeditious as possible. The general reference is more difficult to predict, and I think we must leave it to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Dell: Will legislation be required?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot answer that hypothetical question until we see what the Monopolies Commission requests. If legislation is required, we will consider it.
We shall continue to watch for areas of weak competition and excessive price or wage increases and make further references in due course of other candidates of the type I have just mentioned.
I should like briefly to say a little about consumer protection, which is the other leg of the subject we are debating. It is confusing to bring this issue of the Consumer Council into a debate which in the main has been about prices—or at least it was last week—and not about questions of quality analysis, safety, labelling and the general aspects of value for money upon which the Consumer Council has done its work in the past.
We are entirely in sympathy with "consumerism", the demands of con-

sumers for a square deal. These demands are healthy and represent one of the forces which contributes to the improvement of the goods available in the shops, the standard of living and competition. It is not a question of ends, it is entirely a question of means. Our means are slightly different from those which have been employed in the past.
The function of the Government is to establish and maintain a body of law which sets out the ground rules for good commercial behaviour. Such law may be positive, in the sense of requiring food to be labelled, or defining specific obligations which sellers are to accept, or negative, in the sense of saying "Such and such an action is so contrary to the well being of the community that it must be treated as a crime." Central Government has shown itself ready and willing to play its part. One only has to look at the record of the last 10 years—major legislation on weights and measures, hire purchase, trade descriptions and medicines, and valuable Acts of Parliament on such matters as misrepresentation and unsolicited goods. Here I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) who will be pleased to know that their Act has reached the Statute Book. Extensive new food labelling regulations are coming in. This is not the end of what we are doing. We hope before long to act on the question of exclusion clauses, and we are considering action on the Crowther Report on consumer credit. This adds up to a body of consumer law which must already be the envy of most other countries, a constant readiness to developing needs, and a readiness to act upon them where legislation emerges as the proper answer.
It is no use just passing laws about this, that or the other. Somebody must see that they are obeyed. In the field of criminal law designed to protect the consumer this matter has traditionally, and properly, been the rôole of local government. It is therefore with great pleasure that I pay tribute to the work of the local inspectors in administering this body of the law, and the House will agree that their expertise and knowledge has increased enormously in the last 10 years.
I would stress that all consumers do not live in the West End of London.


They live all over the country. Therefore, it is vital that the enforcement of the consumer protection laws should be based on local government so that everybody has an opportunity to benefit from the protection which exists.
I do not believe nor does the Government that it is any more the function of the State to provide the consumer pressure groups. I pay tribute to the Consumer Council and to its members who served it for so many years for the valuable work they carried out. In a sense the Council blazed the trail. Many of the Acts on the Statute Book which I have mentioned owe something to the Council, and indeed in a way the Council paved the way for its own abolition. It increased awareness among consumers, it stimulated other bodies to come into the field and it was influential in getting legislation on the Statute Book.
There are more private organisations in the field. There is, of course, the Consumers' Association which has a growing reputation. Its magazine Which? is widely read, comparative testing is perhaps its strongest side, and it is enlarging its field in many other directions. If any hon. Gentleman feels there should be more representation for consumers or if constituents write to him suggesting that they are not represented, he should suggest that they join the Consumers' Association, and perhaps even bid for office on that body's managing board. There are now over 80 local consumer groups which carry out valuable work in the districts and give their members full value for money. If any hon. Member has not such a group in his constituency, he might feel inclined to try to stimulate one to come into existence.
There are over 500 Citizens' Advice Bureaux, partly supported by the Government, which undertake work in this field as well as in many others. Therefore, the pattern of consumer protection is emerging as consumers themselves want it. It is for them to provide the organisation they need locally and centrally. A Government body could induce the idea that the Government have guaranteed quality and approved everything they buy. This would lead to pressure for government to take responsibility for too much and would lull the citizen into a false sense of security.
One cannot protect people against their own mistakes, whether it be in buying the wrong lawnmower or putting in a wage claim that could price them out of the market. The difference between us and the Opposition is that we do not pretend that people do not have to show responsibility for themselves. It is downright irresponsible one day to come to the House and demand higher wages for all, on another day to demand that prices be stopped rising—except, of course, in the case of steel on which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is always so eloquent—on a third day to demand that we increase company liquidity and investment, which could only mean higher prices or lower wages, and then, today, to put down this Motion demanding that the Opposition's irresponsible schizophrenia be sorted out by "an organisation" of unspecified powers and duties, which is to sit like King Canute on the rising tideline of prices, ignoring the economic facts of life. I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): I would remind the House that there is three-quarters of an hour left for debate. If six hon. Members wish to take part in the discussion, three on each side, it will mean that each speaker should take seven minutes.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: I hope to speak very briefly indeed since I have virtually had my say on this matter on an earlier occasion. I would remind the Under-Secretary of State that the Motion which I put before the House last week was entirely my own and I was not assisted by any political party or group. It was put together by my wife and myself in our own home and was an amalgam of the experience of all the people in our area.
The hon. Gentleman said that my Motion was not worth voting against. I find that remark offensive, contemptible and arrogant and an insult to the House which accepted the Motion. What is more the remark will cause deep offence in East Anglia because, during the debate on my Motion, one hon. Member said he regarded my contribution as moderate and one that should be listened to. I make no exaggerated claim for my efforts, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman


made a terrible mistake in making the remark he did.
It has been claimed that the debate on the subject last week which was widely publicised, particularly in East Anglia, had some dramatic effect on the elections last Thursday. I reject such a claim entirely, but from the letters I have received since then from all over the United Kingdom there is an indication of public interest, support and concern. Indeed, favourable reaction has come from well-known members of the Conservative Party as well as from others. One staunch Conservative, a small grocer, was so incensed at the price of butter, and found it so difficult to convince his elderly customers that it was not his fault, that he came along to the Labour Committee rooms and offered the use of his car for the rest of the day and drove Labour supporters to the poll. At a social function I was approached by a Conservative lady who had retained her seat on a rural authority and who told me "Don't forget that I am a housewife, too, and I would urge you to keep up the pressure on the Government on this very important matter." I will not refer to what happened in Lowestoft, but if the Minister of Agriculture himself were here I am sure he would feel very worried.
The Minister last week made great play, as did the spokesman for the Government this afternoon, about demands for the return of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and all the cumbrous machinery that he envisaged. I made no such suggestion and I do not make it today. I want to see some definite protection organisation set up by the Government which will co-operate with the Government and be recognised by the Government. The Government's theory of unrestricted competition, with the help of one or two organisations, is wishful thinking. In the present situation it will not work and certainly will not convince the housewife. While prices and the profits of the big food combines continue to rise, discontent will continue to grow. Do not forget that it was the women who swayed the General Election result in spite of the public opinion polls. It is my experience that women have longer memories than most men give them credit for.
The Government have an almost pathetic belief in the value of competition

to reduce prices. This may be justified in circumstances where there are adequate supplies to meet demand. But when demand exceeds supply, as in the case of butter and beef, prices rise because of keen competition for supplies. People corner wholesale supplies by astute buying, and the resulting competition for supplies puts up prices. There are many basic foods which are in short supply, and competition for them puts up prices. That is a basic business philosophy. I am not an economist. I believe that we suffer from them too much. But these are the simple facts of life. This is the sort of situation that I am asking the Government to investigate and control as part of the battle against wage-cost inflation.
I do not detract from the value of voluntary organisations such as those mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State. Apparently, there is now a move to set up a consumers' union. I have been approached in this connection and it may be that other hon. Members have. Such a body could become quite a militant one, and there is a danger in this. I remember the Housewives' League, which put out the Labour Government of 1945–50 and became almost a subsidiary of the Conservative Central Office —[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but I am giving them advice based on experience of the past.
The Government made a fatal mistake in abolishing the Consumer Council. I feel that they should now set up a similar body with wider powers, and I have suggested already that among its members there should be representative housewives. I do not suggest that lightly. I hold the view that the Government would be well advised to keep in touch with representative housewives, who can keep their Government closely in touch with their problems. This is vital from a public relations point of view, and I appeal to the Government to do it.
Another factor which has emerged since last Monday's debate is one that I have taken very seriously. A letter from a Norwich doctor supporting my case appeared in my local paper. It went on to express serious concern about the inevitable lowering of nutritional standards due to the rising prices of basic foods, with a consequent threat to the nation's health. This is a very serious


matter. It is a point of real substance and an added and vital reason for a strict watch and check to be made on the price movements of essential foods.
Today's debate inevitably is political in character, but I appeal sincerely to the Government to set aside their natural party prejudice. I do not blame them for it. We on this side have it as well. The Government should implement the requests made by an undivided House last Monday. To do so would be an act of statesmanship. To fail would intensify the divisions in the nation, which I for one would deplore.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), no doubt with the best intentions, once again has confused two quite separate matters. The separation was made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in a brilliantly clear speech. It is that consumer matters divide themselves fairly sharply into those dealing with the terms of trade, price movements and matters of that kind, and those concerned with the framework of the trade, advertising, hire purchase, quality and all those matters. What is the right machinery for one is not the right machinery for another.
When the hon. Gentleman appeals for the reinstitution of the Consumer Council, I cannot help thinking that lie believes that somehow the Council has control over prices, or would have had if it had continued. However, that was not its function. I am certain—and, if I were not, no amount of doctrinaire feelings or dogma would prevent me changing my mind—that no agencies or boards, whether public, semi-public or private, will ever be able to control prices. The most that we can do is, in conditions of monopoly or semi-monopoly or of restrictive practices, to provide suitable judicial and quasi-judicial agencies. I was delighted to hear that a rolling programme is envisaged by the Government for a bigger and better attack upon the monopolies and near monopolies which exist in our commercial and industrial system. We are told that it is foreshadowed for the next Session.
I want to devote my speech mainly to the second and quite unrelated matter, that of consumer protection, properly so-

called. I agree with the objective of my hon. Friend, which is that as far as possible this must be self-regulating. Parliament must provide the framework of laws in which the consumer has a chance to protect himself and stand before the law on something like equal terms against his adversary, who must be the commercial and industrial interests.
I fear that he does not do so at present. I do not think that one can do what I should like to see done eventually, which is to withdraw all public support for the consumer in this connection, until there is a greater equality before the law in this matter of the consumer claims. Whereas I welcome such legislation as the Misrepresentation Act and other improvements in the civil law, both actual and envisaged, which will give him greater powers and I am glad to know that the exclusion of the normal Sale of Goods Act warranties is very much in the mind of the Government at the moment—none of that will do much good unless in the civil courts the consumer is able, for reasons of cost and so on, to take advantage of these laws. At present he is quite unable to do so. That is why it was necessary in the Trades Descriptions Act to give to the criminal law functions which are not or should not be criminal at all. The consumer is unable to take action in the civil courts because he cannot afford it.
I shall not expand upon this point. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) know my views on the subject, and they have been somewhat crystallised in the Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for the institution of small claims courts.
There are many different views about the machinery which should be set up, just as there are about whether we should adopt the American system or adapt our own county court system. However, the way to get down costs, which is the crux of the matter, is not by means of increased legal aid. No amount of legal aid in the future could possibly deal with the problem. The only way to keep costs down is for the court itself to call the evidence, instituting the investigating officer as an official


of the court, and thus doing away with the very expensive cross-examination of experts, with an expert's fee for each side, and with a great deal of time spent in the county courts.
At present it is quite outside the scope of possibility of the consumer, not merely the poor consumer but the average consumer, who buys his washing machine or some other consumer durable and finds that it goes wrong, or who puts in central heating and finds that it goes wrong. At present he has no effective redress in the civil courts against the offending firm purely because lie cannot afford the costs. Certainly he cannot afford the possibility of defeat in the county court. That is a wrong situation. Hon. Members on both sides must have experienced the sort of hollow echo of laughter which occurs when a constituent asks, "What am I to do? I have a dispute with a commercial firm." Faced with such a situation, an hon. Member may say, "I am afraid that that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the law courts, for you and your legal advisers." That is the correct answer. It is not a matter in which either central or local government is involved. The theory on which we work is that we should not interfere in such matters. But the hollow laughter which comes back is more than most of us can take because that advice is no advice. First, solicitors are reluctant to take consumer cases, as is well known, because there is no money in them. So the county courts have become totally unbalanced. The courts which were to have been for the poor man, created about 120 years ago, are now barred not only to the poor man but to the average man regarding these small claims.
It is in this direction that the Government, particularly their legal members, should be directing their attention. So far there have been indications to the contrary, from both this Government and the last Government, on this all-important question of the small claims court. I use that as a "shorthand" description, although it is not a very good title. Until that is put right, there is not much point in passing civil law after civil law giving increasing rights to the consumer when they are theoretical in 99 per cent. of cases.
I hope that when we congratulate ourselves on these splendid laws which we have passed and are to pass, we shall realise that passing them is only the beginning. Until the procedure in the small claims courts is made open and possible for the consumer, I believe that there must be a public pressure group, which in theory I and my hon. Friend dislike, which, in some inefficient way, at least would hold the line until the legal procedural reforms which I have advocated are put into practice.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who is my constituency neighbour, that prices and the general problem of consumer protection are to some extent separate issues. I do not want to talk about prices today—the Minister will be very relieved—except to say that the Government can hardly complain if they have been knocked about a bit concerning prices. We all vividly remember the lurid details set out in equally lurid leaflets about every small price increase which occurred under the Labour Government and the explicit promise issuing forth from the Conservatives before and during the General Election campaign that they would somehow bring a halt to rising prices. Since they have not done that, they can hardly complain if we rub it in a bit.
Consumer protection is really the problem of the day-to-day frustrations of ordinary people whenever they come into contact with commercial organisations, whether shopkeepers or manufacturers, to get any satisfaction from legitimate complaints. We all know about these frustrations because we have all suffered from them.
It is significant that today the Sun in its leading article, under the headline, "The Great Repair Racket", says:
The service and repair of household appliances is now a national scandal.
This is perfectly true. One buys an expensive washing machine and assumes that it will last for a long time. When the housewife tries to obtain a spare part for a small appliance which has gone wrong she is often rebuffed and suffers a series of excuses: "The thing is now out of stock. There is a new model.
Write to our service department". When she writes to the service department, she does not get a reply. So she then writes to the headquarters and again gets no reply, or an excuse.
The irritability, temper and effect on the health of the average person due to his or her inability to get any kind of satisfaction on a minor point, is very great. Shopping around for a small washer does not work, because one cannot get it. It probably is not made. This is why there is a need for a powerful body to speak for the consumer.

Mr. Neil McBride: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with close interest. Does he recall that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit advocated the appointment of a consumers' ombudsman in that sphere? Does he agree that this official should have his powers extended to cover the surveillance of all prices?

Mr. Davidson: I agree; but I want to go further. One reason for the public being so frustrated is that they do not know where to make complaints. I should like to see a specific Government Department responsible for consumer affairs and nothing else. The Minister may nod and think that it is impracticable. I remind him that in Canada a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has recently been appointed and is doing a very good job. The public in Canada are able to write to a Government Department with their complaints. The oath of office of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs states:
The Minister shall initiate, recommend or undertake programmes designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer.
I should like a Minister, preferably of Cabinet rank, to have the specific job of promoting the interests of the British consumer. No Department has specific responsibility for the consumer. It seems to be the responsibility of a number of Departments and Ministers. The Department of Trade and Industry deals with weights and measures rules, trade descriptions, and the like. In some ways, it carries out those responsibilities very well. But the main responsibility of that Department is directed towards trade and industry. The pressure of trade and industry on the Minister is very great indeed, but no pressure is brought to bear

upon him by the consumer in general because he has not got access to him.
Similarly, the Home Office has responsibility for bringing in all kinds of safety regulations, but it acts in a rather dilatory manner. Safety is important to the public, yet they have no say in the matter.
I believe that a Department with specific responsibility to act for the consumer is essential if he is to get anything like a fair deal.

Mr. Charles Curran: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but will he take it a stage further and tell us what power he proposes to give this Department?

Mr. Davidson: No, I will not tell the hon. Gentleman. He will have to work that out. I can understand the reluctance of hon. Members opposite to accept that they are the Government, but they must take responsibility. They have expert advisers, so it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to work something out. I hope they will.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he would take some action on the irritating matter of exclusion clauses in contracts of guarantee. I hope that early action will be taken, because the Law Commission has recommended that they should be abolished. There is no reason for the Government not acting upon that recommendation as soon as possible.
Also, for consumer protection, the Government ought to introduce by law the concept of unit pricing for a wide range of commodities such as detergents, soap, cosmetics and biscuits. I cannot see why the public should not be enabled to compare value for money price for price and weight for weight. It should be easy for the public to do that, and I should like the Government to consider implementing that proposal as soon as possible.
I do not want to delay the House for much longer. I have made my point, and I conclude by saying that there is a need for a specific body to represent the consumer. Despite what the Minister said—and I think he was rather complacent—he has not made clear why, if the Consumer Council was necessary and a good thing a few years ago, and the Opposition as they then were felt constrained to praise it in their election manifesto, they have suddenly, on becoming the Government, found a reason for abolishing it.


They have not explained why they have abolished it. I think they have done so because they have a doctrinaire objection to it, and for no other reason.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I have no doubt that rising prices had a profound effect on the local government election results last week, but it is somewhat odd that the Labour Party should be the beneficiary of the failure so far of the Government to bring prices under control. After all, it was the Labour Party that invented S.E.T., and it was the party that lost the local government elections which halved that tax. It was the Labour Party which, in Budget after Budget, raised indirect taxation, and only this afternoon we have seen hon. Gentlement opposite go into paroxysms of rage at the suggestion that tariffs should be cut. A tariff cut can only benefit the consumer, whatever other results may flow from such a move.
I want to devote the main part of my remarks to supporting the plea made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) for a small claims court. Like the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), whom I think I can call my hon. Friend, I was delighted to hear that the Government intend to take action on the exclusion clauses under the Sale of Goods Act. This may be of some importance, but in the years that I have been in the House I have known only one constituent take action under the Sale of Goods Act to protect himself, and he won his case. Not only did he win, but he received all the legal aid that it was possible to give him. Nevertheless, at the end of the day he told me, "I thought I had won, but I find that I have lost", and that was because, although we gave him all the help that was possible, and although he won on every ground, he was worse off than he was before he brought the case. That situation is clearly a nonsense, and until the consumer can go to court, without ruining himself, to protect himself against goods and services that are defective, he will not be properly protected.
The Consumer Council, whose passing I lament—I join the hon. Member for Accrington, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen in regretting its demise—produced a report on the small claims court. That was only

one of the Council's many good works. The consumer still needs a pressure group working on his behalf, and the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry has taken on more and more responsibility over the whole range of industry increases rather than decreases the necessity for the views of the consumer to be heard in the echoing corridors of that Department.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall be brief, but I want to deal with the point made by the Minister that so much legislation in this respect has been passed that in a sense it absolves us from the necessity of having a conumer association to protect the consumer.
Among the legislation that we have passed, there is the Trade Description Act. Having reread the kind of fraud with which the Minister and his colleagues went to the country, I am not sure that we cannot invoke the Trade Descriptions Act to deal with the situation confronting us. Hon. Gentlemen opposite promised:
We will give overriding priority to bringing the present inflation under control.
It seems to me that under Section 11(3) of the Trade Descriptions Act they are in grave danger of offering goods as available for supply and then failing to come up with the goods, but I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Good-hart) that this has become a major political issue. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, because he has recognised what his Front Bench has not.
What was regarded as one of the Government's meanest measures was the ending of the Consumer Council. I speak with care, because I had a slight vested interest in it by marriage, because my wife was a member of the Consumer Council. However, as the Government have sacked her I am by the same token free, for once, to speak on consumer affairs.
It is not sufficient to pass legislation to deal with the problem. The real difficulty is that people do not know how to take advantage of that legislation. My weekends used to be plagued by the telephone ringing and people asking, "Are you the woman who takes up carpets?" That is how they used to describe my wife, because there was no one else to whom they could put their queries.


They used to try to do things in that amateur way.
It is clear that the Government do not intend to recreate the Consumer Council which they have just abolished, but the Minister has rightly paid tribute to the work done by many voluntary and private bodies. I am associated with the running of two such bodies, the Retail Trading Standards Association and the Consumer Association, and there are a number of other effective bodies in this field.
I hope the Minister will consider setting up a committee with representatives from all the private groups in existence to give him advice from time to time and to supplement the advice that he gets from his own excellent officials. I fear that the voice of the consumer is not heard as loudly as it should be, and unless his voice is heard and heeded, last week's results at the polls may be repeated next year.
We have the Trade Descriptions Act, but we have not made it easy for people to use the provisions of that Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) talked about value for money weight for weight and price for price. It is not good enough to say that a consumer can tell whether it is better to buy 6⅞ ozs. of biscuits at 21p, or 7¼ozs. of biscuits at 23½p. Perhaps the Minister will tell me which is the better value.
Nor is it good enough to say, as the Minister did, that because it was so effective, and because of the work that it did in stimulating consumer protection, the Consumer Council is no longer necessary, that it has worked itself out of existence having done the job that it was set up to do. Every consumer organisation protested against the abolition of the Consumer Council. The real difficulty about the Council was that it did not have enough powers. Something on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington—a Ministry of Consumer Protection—may be the right way forward. Perhaps we could resurrect the Council and give it power to investigate complaints. That is one of the difficulties. Amateur organisations have been examining complaints. All the best ones have said, "Write to your M.P." We hope that House of Commons notepaper will make a firm jump, but it does

not always work. We have no power to make a firm jump if it does not wish to do so.
The Minister has said that we are no longer talking about prices. In that case, what about the debate last week, when a Motion concerning prices was agreed to by the House? Today's Motion trusts that the new organisation
will embrace all the powers of the Consumer Council".
I hope it does, and I also hope it will have the power to examine prices.
It is not true that competition by itself brings down prices. Competition takes place in order that the competitive battle may be won by somebody. Firms do not compete and then blow the whistle for half-time. That is the great dilemma of the party opposite. Firms are competing to win, and when a firm wins it immediately occupies a monopolistic position, which means that the Government are in trouble. What are they to do? Are they to create an artificially stimulated firm, so that competition can start again, or do what is being suggested now, by setting up an organisation for consumer protection? Either they are going to interfere or they are not.
Today's Motion is a very serious one. It is not enough for the Minister to sneer at it. He has said that my hon. Friend did not say how the organisation would be constructed, and he read an extract from his speech. To me my hon. Friend seemed to spell out a pretty good remit. There was no need for the Minister to sneer at the suggested presence of housewives on the body to be set up. Until we can extend democracy in this way there is no call for that kind of reply. We should pass the Motion because it is the will of the House, as indicated last week.
Secondly, we must pay atention to prices. Prices are not rising by accident; many factors are involved. We have appointed a Minister whose wholehearted philosophy is to increase prices At the same time as the Government were saying, two days before the General Election, that they would cut prices at a stroke they were busy making preparations to appoint a Minister whose view is that the nation has been molly-coddled for too long by receiving cheap food. That person is now Minister of Agriculture,


Fisheries and Food. It is no accident that food prices are rising. It has not been due to inflated wage demands alone; it is also because we have a Government and a Minister of Food who are dedicated to the proposition that food prices should rise.
Unless we hear that philosophy repudiated from the Front Bench today we must push the Motion to a Division. I hope the Government will accept the will of the House and agree to the Motion.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Richard Luce: I shall be brief. I have been concerned in matters affecting consumers and consumerism for the last three or four years, and I therefore want to make two or three points. Perhaps because I have been succeeded in my last job in the National Innovation Centre by Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd, whose work has been so concerned with consumer interests. I have a more direct link with the work of the Consumer Council.
I agree with my hon. Friends who have suggested that it is a fallacy to suppose that there is a link between setting up a national agency such as has been suggested—perhaps a revival of the Consumer Council—and a reduction in prices. I should have thought that the people who worked in the Consumer Council during the last seven years would be the first to agree that their work has had little effect in terms of a reduction in prices. They might argue that some of the work they have done has had a marginal effect upon prices. We would all agree that some of their work has had an educational effect upon the consumer, in that consumers have been told the reasons why price increases have occurred.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the hon. Member agree that the Consumer Council would be deeply concerned about the quality of a product in relation to the price paid for it?

Mr. Luce: I am coming to that point. There is general agreement, certainly among those who have worked in the consumer field, that the setting up of such a body would not have the literal effect of reducing prices.
Nevertheless, I believe that in a competitive economy it is necessary to have

a central consumer organisation. In the private sector excellent work has been done by the Consumers Association, which gives information on products and services. Products have been examined by about 80 consumer groups. There is the Housewives' Trust and the C.A.Bs. But, despite all these bodies, the evidence is that we still need a focal point to act as a lubricating machine between the interests of the consumers and the interests of the producers. We need such a body to co-ordinate consumer activities and to apply pressure.
An examination of the work done by the Consumer Council over the last seven years bears out my point that it has had little direct effect upon prices but has nevertheless played an extremeliy useful rôle in helping the consumer in putting forward his case in many ways. It advocated the abolition of retail price maintenance, but in 1964 the Government had already decided to take action.
The Council exerted pressure to enforce maximum prices for the resale of electricity and gas, and to retain the sixpence after decimalisation. It has done useful work in many ways. It has advocated the setting up of local insurance information centres and the licensing of brokers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) will bear me out when I say that some of the Council's most valuable work has been in connection with selling methods. It has said some strong things about doorstep selling methods and some of the abuses that have taken place, and has managed to bring about a voluntary code of conduct in connection with the sale of educational books and central heating systems by doorstep salesmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham will also agree that it played an invaluable rôle in helping him to get through his Unsolicited Goods and Services Act.
In travel, the Council has played a leading part in getting a petrol grading system, and has also played a most useful role in improving the safety of electrical appliances, fire extinguishers, flammable nightdresses, toys, and so on. Its rôle in the consumer field has been very useful.
The Government should go out of their way to encourage the revival of a central consumer organisation, but there is a case for a joint effort by the Government and


private sources together. I would urge the Government to consider doing everything in their power to bring this about. But it is a sheer pipe dream to suppose that by setting up or reviving the Consumer Council one could dramatically reduce prices.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: At any rate today we have heard a new principle of Government—at least of this Government—that when Motions are moved which the Government think are inadequately argued, they will not oppose them but will then arrogantly reject the view of the House. This will assist the Opposition in putting down Motions and in getting them through, but it may not assist them in getting them implemented.
The Opposition Motion calls for the setting up of an organisation for consumer protection; the Government Motion places its faith in competition plus the efforts of unspecified public organisations. One which the Under-Secretary mentioned was the Monopolies Commission. I will come to what he said on that score. One public organisation should be an organisation like the Consumer Council. What public organisation is there which on its own initiative, without reference from the Government, after a survey of the whole field and a careful study, can advise the Government, Parliament and public on matters like consumer protection problems, on legislation for consumer protection, on how—as the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) put it—to achieve greater equality before the law, on improvements needed in competition legislation for the benefit of the consumer?
Why have not the Government understood the significance of the fact that it is some of those of us on both sides of the House who are most in favour of strengthening the forces of competition who are most in favour of an organisation like the Consumer Council? The hon. and learned Member for Darwen I sometimes regard as the voice of competition on the Government benches. He is in favour of a body like the Consumer Council. Indeed, I think that every hon. Member opposite who spoke is in favour of body like that.
What was the Council's own definition of its job? Its definition, written by Lord Donaldson, was "to make competition effective"—to make it effective by pressure, information and legislation. I would remind the House of Lord Donaldson's judgment at the end of the years of the Consumer Council:
The experience of all consumer organisations is that it is becoming more, not less, difficult for consumers to get value for money.
I was interested in the example of Canada quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), where they have seen the importance of bringing competition legislation together with Consumer Council-type activity to the extent of putting them together in the same Government Ministry, recently created. These things go together. The object of the Consumer Council was indeed to make competition more effective.
Two questions arise out of this debate. The first arises from the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and others. That is, what will the Government do about the idea of a small claims court proposed by the Consumer Council? Second, are the Government preparing the Crowther legislation? It will be difficult and complicated legislation to write. Are they doing that job? When will it be introduced?
The Government obviously consider that there are many areas of economic activity in which competition is not effective. They take a certain amount of credit for price cuts which they say have followed the cut in S.E.T., although they are rather naive in this. They seem to have forgotten what no housewife would forget—that talking about price cuts is one of the methods of competition in this country. But this is clearly the Government's basic view—that there are many areas where competition is not effective.
This is most recently shown by the statements over the weekend and today by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the consideration given to cutting motor car tariffs. He obviously thinks that competition is not effective enough in that industry, so he is considering unilateral tariff reductions—but he


will not make such reductions. He has also made that sufficiently clear. He may have pleased some of his hon. Friends by saying that they are thinking about it, but the idea of making these cuts is one which the Government obviously will not fulfil.
If the Government are not going to do this in an area where they claim, in these statements, that competition is not effective, what will they do? Why will they not introduce price control? What will they do about the motor car industry if that is their view?
We have been hearing for some time most recently in the Press, leaks and rumours about what the Government would do to strengthen the forces of competition. I welcome the announcements by the Under-Secretary today, particularly the short reference on breakfast cereals. He said that more references have been made by his Government in the last year than were made by the Labour Government in their last years. But I would remind him that if he is to have competition with us in the numbers of references—I do not mind such competition—he must count the references made to the Prices and Incomes Board, which was also concerned with the effectiveness of competition in securing price reductions or ensuring that price increases were not greater than they had to be. When he can beat us in that competition, I will certainly compliment him.
But the House should realise what certain of the hon. Gentleman's announcements today really mean. For instance, there was the important announcement about the subject of price leadership. He said that that was a general reference. General references to the Monopolies Commission do not give the Government powers of action when it reports. If any action is required which is outside the existing law, as is very often the case, legislation is necessary. So what is the total process in the Government's consideration of price leadership? We have had a year of this Government before they decided to make this reference, and now there will be two years, probably, while the Monopolies Commission considers it, and then, if necessary, legislation. If this is dealing with prices at a stroke, we need some redefinition of terms.
The Under-Secretary also suggested that perhaps when the legislation is introduced in the autumn there will be something to do with price control in certain market power situations. When I asked him what those situations amounted to, he could not tell us. I suggest to him and the Government that they should do precisely what was included in the Commission for Industry and Manpower Bill, which they opposed—that is, make it clear that, in all market power situations, not just any situations defined within the existing legislation as dealing with a third of the market for goods, there should be a power of price control.
Until the Government have gone that far, they cannot claim to have sufficiently strengthened the forces of competition to deal with the price situation which arises in areas of imperfect competition, which is what they apparently claim to be doing. But what will have been apparent during this debate—it is certainly apparent to this side of the House—is the complete and obvious inadequacy of what the Government are doing about prices in this period of gross inflation.
Their powers are inadequate, and they are not taking more until studies are done or until the autumn. The timescale of their handling of the problem is inadequate. Indeed, it is clear that the Government have not the faintest idea what to do in this situation. Their desperation about what to do, as speeches by hon. Members opposite have shown, has not been reduced by the local government elections.
So we are getting a new style of Government—government by ineffectual threat. "We will not bale out companies which give inflationary wage increases". How many companies have so far asked the Government to be baled out? "We will consider unilaterally cutting tariffs for industries where inflationary wage settlements are made." What unilateral cuts in tariffs have been made or will be made?
I shudder to think what terrible threats the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will come out with next to chill our blood. He may shortly be using the famous words of King Lear, who had trouble with two of his daughters, greater than even the trouble that the Secretary


of State for Trade and Industry has with British industry:
I will do such things—
What they are yet I know not—but they shall be
The terrors of the earth.
The Government do not know what to do. All they are doing is to threaten but not to act. Indeed, this is the judgment on the Government. Instead of competition, we have threats; instead of leadership, floundering; instead of action, words.

6.50 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I have only a brief time in which to reply, and I shall, therefore, have of necessity to go rather quickly. This debate has been conducted on two levels. At one level it has been a bit of a charade, and at the other perfectly serious.
When the Opposition Motion calls for a new organisation, perhaps I need say no more than this. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) last week and his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) today both made it clear that they are looking for an organisation which will control prices. "Investigate and control" was what the hon. Member for Norwich, North said. Anybody who heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wind up the debate last Monday will have been left in no doubt that it is not the Government's intention to introduce any body to start controlling prices. That was our attitude, and it remains our attitude a week later.
Bearing in mind the clear, unequivocal, specific and categorical repudiation of that part of last week's Motion, I say on behalf of the Government that the Opposition Motion today is a bit of a charade. It was suggested by one or two hon. Members—the hon. Member for Norfolk, North himself used some fairly extravagant language—that it was offensive, contemptible and arrogant that we had not immediately adopted his proposal.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot give way; I have only about eight minutes left.
There is plenty of precedent for this. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West

(Mr. Hamling), in a Motion concerning single women and their dependants, made the most specific demands for new social security benefits, and his Motion was carried. The Government did not do anything about it—nobody seriously suggested that they would—but the constitution did nod fall around our ears.
We all know that hon. Members opposite, or some of them, are looking for the return of the high old days of the Prices and Incomes Board, with the joys of norms and criteria, early warnings and statutory guidelines. Equally well, however, they know that we on this side are not. That is why I describe that part of today's Motion as a charade.
A number of serious issues have been raised and I will try to deal with them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) mentioned the suggestion made by the Consumer Council in its publication "Justice out of Reach" for small claims courts. I remind him that on 17th February this year my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General told the House in response to a Question that this was one of the matters that were being studied by the Lord Chancellor. There were certain difficulties in the precise proposals put forward in the publication, but my noble Friend has arranged for the matter to be considered at a conference of county court judges, registrars and chief clerks and their suggestions are to be put to the County Court Rules Committee. It is suggested that to make justice cheaper in the county courts would be likely to be more effective than to set up an entirely new set of courts.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) asked about the Crowther Report. He will, I am sure, recognise that this was a long and complex Report. It is, of course, being urgently considered by the Government, and I am sure that the House will realise that it is too soon for me to make any sort of announcement on legislation.
The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), asked about weights and measures and whether we should not extend the powers under the weights and measures legislation to other categories of consumer protection. The Government are to produce a White


Paper on metrication, and there is not the slightest doubt that the introduction of metric standards will greatly simplify the problems of weights and measures. I think we should await that White Paper before taking any decisions.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) made the astonishing suggestion that housewives are frequently incapable of shopping around, for a variety of reasons which he gave.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In some categories.

Mr. Jenkin: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman what the Prices and Incomes Board said in one of its final Reports, on Prices, Profits and Costs in Food Distribution, at paragraph 199:
our consumer survey…showed that most shoppers did not in practice use manufacturers' recommended prices as a basis for judging whether the price of an item was high or low. They tended to compare prices between shops rather than against the recommended price.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Member shakes his head, but that was a point made by the board which he wants to restore. It really is not on.
I should like, during the last few moments of the debate, to say a word about price inflation. It is a serious social evil as well as a grave economic danger, because it hits the poor and the retired, and it hits those on fixed incomes hardest of all. It forces a redistribution of income from the weak to the strong.
If we want price stability, then we cannot all have large increases in pay every year regardless of the rise in productivity.
Those are not my words. They come from the last Government's White Paper on prices and incomes of December, 1969. There is not the slightest doubt that the sharp acceleration in wage claims since the third quarter of 1969 has had a

delayed but dramatic effect on the increase in price inflation.

Had there been time, I would have been delighted to quote the figures, but the pattern is absolutely incontrovertible: wage rises increasing rapidly from the middle of 1969 and price rises following six to nine months later. There cannot be one right hon. or hon. Member who does not in his heart acknowledge it. We are, therefore, asked for price controls. This is a lot of nonsense.
Modern industrial society, modern consumer requirements, modern design and selling, would make it impossible for a total system of price control, which could only become increasingly bureaucratic and irrelevant.
Those, again, are not my words. They are the words of the Leader of the Opposition in a lecture in New York less than two weeks ago. I concede that he was not forswearing all price controls. Nevertheless, his words, spoken less than two weeks ago abroad, contrast markedly with the words of many hon. Members opposite in the House this afternoon.

The fact is that we have a policy to fight inflation which is clear, which is working and which will be effective. It is the de-escalation of wage settlements. It is a firm control of the money supply. It is the reform of industrial relations. It is the reduction of taxation. It is the promotion of competition. We will not be deflected from this course by temporary unpopularity outside the House or by foolish charades in it. The Labour Party has nothing to offer but a repetition of the measures which failed when it was in office.

I ask the House to accept the Government's Amendment and to reject the Opposition Motion.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 255.

Division No. 364.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Braine, Bernard


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Benyon, w.
Bray, Ronald


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brewis, John


Astor, John
Biffen, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Awdry, Daniel
Blatter, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Body, Richard
Bryan, Paul


Balniel, Lord
Boscawen, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bossom, Sir Clive
Buck, Antony


Batsford, Brian
Bowden, Andrew
Bullus, Sir Eric


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Burden, F. A.




Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Osborn, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Hordern, Peter
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Channon, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chapman, Sydney
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Parkinson, Cecid (Enfield, W.)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Peel, John


Clark William (Surrey, E.)
Hunt, John
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Cockeram, Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Coombs, Derek
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cooper, A. E.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cordle, John
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Costain, A. p.
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Crouch, David
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Curran, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kilfedder, James
Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dean, Paul
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Dixon, Piers
Kitson, Timothy
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Antony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lane, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sharples, Richard


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fell, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Luce, R. N.
Simeons, Charles


Fidler, Michael
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Soref, Harold


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Speed, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley
Spence, John


Foster, Sir John
 Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)



Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stainton, Keith


Fry, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gibson-Watt, David
Marpes, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mather, Carol
Sutcliffe, John


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tebbit, Norman


Green, Alan

Temple, John M.


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Moate, Roger
Tilney, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molyneaux, James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trew, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geriant (Denbigh)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Waddington, David


Havers, Michael
Mudd, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hayhoe, Barney
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Heseltine, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene


Hicks, Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Higgins, Terence L.
Normanton, Tom
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William







Wiggin, Jerry
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilkinson, John
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrlick
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Younger, Hn. George





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth


Albu, Austen
Forrester, John
Marquand, David


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marsden, F.


Allen, Scholefield
Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Ashley, Jack
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mayhew, Christopher


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, W. E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian


Barnes, Michael
Golding, John
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Joel
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gourlay, Harry
Molloy, William


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland


Booth, Albert
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)



Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Murray, Ronald King


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael



Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oram, Bert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Paget, R. T.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pendry, Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Janner, Greville
Pentland, Norman


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prescott, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
John, Brynmor
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rankin, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Kinnock, Neil
Rddgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lambie, David
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Deakins, Eric
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leonard, Dick
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Edelman, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McElhone, Frank
Steel, David


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Ellis, Tom
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Stodart, David (Swindon)


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fenryhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Swain, Thomas


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverne, Dick


Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)







Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wallace, George
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Watkins, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Tinn, James
Weitzman, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Torney, Tom
Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Tuck, Raphael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woof, Robert


Urwin, T. W.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)



Varley, Eric G.
Whitehead, Phillip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wainwright, Edwin
Whitlock, William
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. James Hamilton.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 255.

Division No. 365.]
AYES
[7.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Jennings, J, C. (Burton)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eden, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Astor, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jopling, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Emery, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fell, Anthony
Kilfedder, James


Balniel, Lord
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fidler, Michael
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Batsford, Brian
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kinsey, J, R.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kirk, Peter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kitson, Timothy


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fortescue, Tim
Lambton, Antony


Biffen, John
Foster, Sir John
Lane, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Fowler, Norman
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fry, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer


Body, Richard
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boscawen, Robert
Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bowden, Andrew
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Gilbert


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Loveridge, John


Braine, Bernard
Goodhart, Philip
Luce, R. N.


Bray, Ronald
Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Brewis, John
Gorst, John
MacArthur, Ian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gower, Raymond
McCrindle, R. A.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gray, Hamish
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Green, Alan
McMaster, Stanley


Bryan, Paul
Grieve, Percy
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Buck, Antony
Gummer, Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gunden, Harold
Maddan, Martin


Burden, F. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Madel, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Halt-Davis, A. G. F.
Maginnis, John E.


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marples, Rt. Hn, Ernest


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Marten, Neil


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mather, Carol


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maude, Angus


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Clegg, Walter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Coombs, Derek
Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cooper, A. E.
Hiley, Joseph
Moate, Roger


Cordle, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)



Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Molyneaux, James


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs, Connie


Critchley, Julian
Holt, Miss Mary
Monro, Hector


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus


Curran, Charles
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
More, Jasper


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Dean, Paul
Hunt, John
Mudd, David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murton, Oscar


Dixon, Piers
Iremonger, T. L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neave, Airey


Drayson, G. B.
James, David
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Noble, Rt. Hit. Michael




Normanton, Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Nott, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Onslow, Cranley
Rost, Peter
Tilney, John


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Royle, Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Trew, Peter


Osborn, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tugerdhat, Christopher


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sharples, Richard
van Straubenzee, W, R.


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Simeons, Charles
Vickers, Dame Joan


Peel, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Waddington, David


Percival, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Pink, R, Bonner
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Pounder, Rafton
Soref, Harold
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speed, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Proudfoot, wilfred
Spence, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Sproat, Iain
Warren, Kenneth



Stainton, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stanbrook, Ivor
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Raison, Timothy
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stokes, John
Wilkinson, John


Redmond, Robert
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Sutcliffe, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tapsell, Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Woodnutt, Mark


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Worsley, Marcus


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Younger, Hn. George


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)



Ridsdale, Julian
Tebbit, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Temple, John M.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.


Albu, Austen
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Horam, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Allen, Scholefield
Deakins, Eric
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Armstrong, Ernest
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Huckfield, Leslie


Ashley, Jack
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Gledwyn (Anglesey)


Ashton, Joe
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Atkinson, Norman
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnes, Michael
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hunter, Adam


Barnett, Joel
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Driberg, Tom
Janner, Greville


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bishop, E. S.
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Eadie, Alex
John, Brynmor


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
English, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Evans, Fred
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Buchan, Norman
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Judd, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kaufman, Gerald


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kelley, Richard


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foley, Maurice
Kerr, Russell


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Foot, Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Lambie, David


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Lamond, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lawson, George


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Garrett, W. E.
Leonard, Dick


Coleman, Donald
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Concannon, J. D.
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Conlan, Bernard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lipton, Marcus


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gourlay, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Loughlin, Charles


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cronin, John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McBride, Neil


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hamling, William
McCartney, Hugh


Dalyell, Tam
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McElhone, Frank


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor


Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackintosh, John P.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Maclennan, Robert







McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Pendry, Tom
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pentland, Norman
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Perry, Ernest G.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersfield, E).
Prescott, John
Swain, Thomas


Marks, Kenneth
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Taverne, Dick


Marquand, David
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Marsden, F.
Probert, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rankin, John
Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Meacher, Michael
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Tinn, James


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Torney, Tom


Mendelson, John
Richard, Ivor
Tuck, Raphael


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Ca[...]rnarvon)
Urwin, T. W.


Millan, Bruce
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Varley, Eric G.


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; Radnor)
Wainwright, Edwin


Molloy, William
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roper, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rose, Paul B.
Wallace, George


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, David


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Weitzman, David


Moyle, Roland
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wellbeloved, James


Murray, Ronald King
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitehead, Philip


Oram, Bert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Orbach, Maurice
Sillars, James
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Oswald, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Small, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Paget, R. T.
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stallard, A. W.



Parker, John (Dagenham)
Steel, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. John Golding.

Resolved,


That this House welcomes the determination of Her Majesty's Government to protect the interests of consumers through greater competition and through the efforts of existing organisations both public and private.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not certain what the procedure is likely to be. The Committee has made some Amendments. I take it that the Bill as reported from the Committee will be moved and spoken to by somebody in charge of the Bill before the main debate begins. Can you give us an indication?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that this is not a matter for the Chair.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: It is regrettable that nobody responsible for the Bill, neither the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) nor any spokesman for the Government, who made observations on the Bill in their report to the Committee, is prepared to present the Bill to the House. Without hearing any of the arguments of those in support of the Bill, we must make our own observations immediately.
Clause 5 deals with public order and public safety. This Clause was the subject of considerable debate on Second Reading. The Government then told us that they would make their views on the Clause known to the Committee. The Government have done that. I believe that if they had made their views on Clause 5 known to the House on Second Reading it is doubtful whether the House would have given a Second Reading to a Bill containing the provisions set out therein.
The report made to the Committee by the Secretary of State for the Home Department made it clear that in the opinion of the Home Department Clause 5—
Control of large overnight assemblies in the open
was not a satisfactory Clause as drafted. The report called the Committee's attention to a number of matters and suggested that Amendments should be made.
The Secretary of State for the Environment supported the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The report made to the Committee by the Department of the Environment said this: "He"—that is the Secretary of State—
would …deprecate the passage of legislation which might inadvertently have the effect of making a bona fide promoter, who was both able and willing to make reasonable provision for these purposes liable to unreasonable harassment. He therefore would wish to be associated with the comments on points of detail made in the report to the Committee of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
So the unique position is that the Home Department and the Department of the Environment have grave reservations about the Clause.
The Bill as amended still contains the basic provisions which were in the Bill before it went to the Committee. It still contains the very subsections to which the two Departments I have specified took exception. Clause 5(1) requires that a promoter or an occupier of land upon which a festival or an all-night assembly is to be held
shall give…not less than four months' notice of his intention to do so.
The report by the Home Department suggested that this figure should be reduced to three months, but the Committee saw fit not to accept that recommendation.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: The Bill has had a Second Reading, and it may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that promoters of pop festivals have said that they need at least four months in which to make all the arrangements and to do the advance publicity for these matters.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Have all those likely to wish to hold pop festivals on the Isle of Wight made such an observation? Is that observation made by an association of promoters of pop festivals or is it just one person who has made that observation? I pray in aid not the comments of one unknown and unidentified possible promoter but the observations of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who thinks that the period should be three months.
The Clause is even more serious, in that the promoters set out to make not only the promoter but also the owner or


occupier of the land liable to these penalties. It seems to be introducing a rather remarkable principle into a piece of private legislation, to make both the promoter and the owner of the land jointly responsible. How is the owner of the land, having let that land to a promoter for a specific purpose, to be held liable for any failure arising through the hirer?

Mr. J. T. Price: I will try to answer that rhetorical question. The owner or occupier of the land, who is induced by the promoters of these great jamborees to accept a high fee for the purposes of housing or staging these jamborees—which may attract at least half a million people—must be held responsible pari passu and in similar manner to the promoter. Otherwise any attempt to control this in the interests of public order and sanity would break down.

Mr. Wellbeloved: That may be my hon. Friend's answer to the question, but would he apply the same principle to someone who hires a motor car? Are we to take it that the principle now enshrined in the Bill would apply then, and are we to say that the person who has hired the vehicle to someone who shows good intention, has a current driving licence and proper insurance, is to be responsible in law for any breach of the road traffic code by the hirer? Are we establishing the principle that the owner of a piece of property, whether it be a motor car or a site on the Isle of Wight, should have responsibility in law for the failure of the person to whom he hires the vehicle or site under the general law of this country?

Mr. J. T. Price: If my hon. Friend is sticking his chin out and asking rhetorical questions I will answer them. There is no analogy between the hiring of a car and the hiring of a piece of land, without sanitation or provision for public order, to attract vast numbers of people. It is a completely false analogy.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that every bona fide promoter of a festival on the Isle of Wight is not prepared to give a reasonable undertaking to a local authority, then he is taking a great deal upon himself in respect of a large number of people who regularly promote large gatherings and do conform to the law. Is it being sug-

gested that, because there have been isolated cases of abuse in the Isle of Wight, because the Isle of Wight Council was possibly incompetent and could not get a reasonable undertaking with a promoter, we should put into this Bill a principle that would be unacceptable to this House and to the democratic system if it were applied to any other area of activity?

Mr. John Golding: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Newcastle Rural District Council, which is in my constituency, had similar difficulties in getting assurances from the promoters of a pop festival? Is he aware that the time allowed was too short to get proper guarantees from the festival operators? Many difficulties arose after the festival had finished, mainly financial. Those of us who represent constituencies in which pop festivals have been held realise the practical problems that arise because of the lack of powers on the part of local authorities and the police to control them properly.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I accept that. No one doubts—and on Second Reading I made it clear—that I am in favour of a law which would deal with the difficulties that arise at such large gatherings. I take the view expressed in the report to the Committee by the Secretary of State for the Home Department who said:
The Secretary of State understands that the type of assembly that has caused concern in the County Council's area has been the popular music festivals held there over the summer Bank Holiday period. He appreciates that such festivals may cause annoyance and nuisance to surrounding residents, but doubts whether problems of law and order"—
and, if I may interpose, this is what this part of the Bill deals with, law and order—
to which such festivals may give rise are suitably dealt with by a Private Bill.
He goes on to say:
He has considered whether general legislation would be justified, and, on present evidence and experience, he is not satisfied that it would.
The Government say that the extent of the problems to which the Isle of Wight and the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) have been subjected, distressing and difficult as they may be, are


not matters suitable to be dealt with, in terms of the law on public safety and order, by this type of private legislation. On the evidence that the Government have received, they are not certain that there is a need for public legislation. I take issue with the Secretary of State. I believe that there is sufficient evidence, adduced by the Isle of Wight and my hon. Friend, of the need for some form of legislation. I am absolutely at one with the Government in that it should not be promoted in a private Measure—by a county council of the reputation of the Isle of Wight. This House ought not to be considering this type of legislation.
The Government have a responsibility to recognise the difficulties and to deal with them by public legislation rather than running away from the issue. What divides my hon. Friends and myself are not great issues of freedom of assembly but what is desirable in terms of the control of these assemblies. Some of my hon. Friends, because they recognise that there are difficulties, are prepared to swallow this sort of objectionable legislation. I say that they are wrong, and should be joining me in saying to the Government tonight that it is the Government's responsibility to deal with such things.

Mr. Woodnutt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for public legislation. I have been saying so for the past two years. I think we shall get it. However, if Erith and Crayford were in the same position as the Isle of Wight, expecting 200,000 people and with no method of establishing whether there were sufficient lavatories, what would the hon. Member do? Would he advise his local authority to go forward and obtain legislation?

Mr. Wellbeloved: Prior to 13th May, I would have been in some difficulty because I had a pretty incompetent local authority in the London Borough of Bexley. I can now answer the hon. Gentleman's point with absolute certainty. The present, newly-elected Council of the London Borough of Bexley—which encompasses both my constituency and that of the Prime Minister—would, I am certain, by dint of application and persuasion come to an understanding with any promoter who wished to hold such a

festival in its area. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always telling us that we should do these things not by legislation but by voluntary agreement. I agree in this case. I believe that my Council could reach an agreement with the promoter. I am not put off by that red herring.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Would my hon. Friend deal with the question of whether in practice there is a need even for Government legislation to control law and order at pop festivals? Will he tell me the instances in which pop festivals have contravened law and order regulations?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not want to get into a detailed discussion about the festival to which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight referred on Second Reading. One thing which is certain about that festival is that the chief constables who advised the Home Secretary took a completely different view from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. They must have looked at the evidence because, in their advice to the Secretary of State, they made it clear that they did not believe there was any likelihood of trouble arising. In the report of the Secretary of State for the Home Department which he made to the Committee it is said:
The level of crime at such festivals is low. Chief constables, whom he"—
that is, the Secretary of State—
has consulted, are of the opinion that the criminal law as it stands is adequate to deal with the problems that arise and that further legislation is unnecessary.
The House must choose between the advice tendered to the Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman's recommendation to the Committee and the panic cries—because that is what they are—of the Isle of Wight County Council.

Mr. Stanley Orme: What many of us find so objectionable about this private Bill is that it tries to treat the Isle of Wight as if it was separate from the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is part of the United Kingdom and therefore should be treated in no better or worse way and that the legislation which exists is adequate to cover the issue?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I would go a long way with what my hon. Friend says. However, I depart from him to this


extent. Large numbers of people—far in excess of the number which the promoters would wish to come together at this type of assembly—can be drawn in because of the enthusiasm which young people have developed for this type of music.

Mr. Loughlin: Why not?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree with my hon. Friend. These people should be able to have an assembly in the open provided that adequate sanitary facilities are provided.
There is legislation on the Statute Book dealing with these matters. If there were doubt about that, I am sure that the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Department, when they made their report to the Committee, would have said, "We welcome the Isle of Wight's Private Bill because the present law is not sufficient". They did not do that. There may be a need for public legislation in respect of very large gatherings. But, unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity of hearing tonight from either the Government or the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. Neither of them was prepared to do the House the courtesy of deploying their arguments in support of the Bill. If they had done so, we might not have needed to deal with the matter in such detail as appears necessary in order to show the House and those of my hon. Friends who have expressed doubts about the case why it is necessary to oppose this piece of panic legislation.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharpies): On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I am not clear about how wide the debate can go. My understanding was that on the Report stage of a Private Bill it was possible only to discuss the Amendments which had been made in Committee. I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it could affect the course of the debate.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Further to that point of order. Would it not be easier to discuss only the Amendments which have been made if the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Wood-

nutt), had opened the debate by indicating what they were?

Mr. Orme: Or the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It so happens that, in this consideration of the Bill, there are not any Amendments. But Erskine May is clear about how the debate should proceed. Let me read what is said in the new edition:
Debate on the question for consideration of a private bill, as reported from a committee, or for its third reading, has been confined by rulings from the chair within narrower limits than the debate on second reading. Not only have attempts to raise questions of general policy been ruled out of order, but debate on the later stages has been restricted to the matters contained in the Bill".

Mr. Loughlin: Further to the point of order. Would you help me, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I appreciate that I am not as bright as some hon. Members. Provided we relate our remarks to a particular Clause and its implications, I take it that we are perfectly in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has stated the matter as well as Erskine May.

Mr. Driberg: Did I hear you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say that the Bill has not been amended or that there are not any Amendments—because the Bill says, "As amended in Committee"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry if what I said was not clear. What I meant was that there were no Amendments down on Report. The Bill has been amended in Committee, and it is the Bill as amended in Committee which we are discussing.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Fortunately, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I acquired a copy of the new edition of Erskine May and I took the precaution of looking up the matter. I am delighted that your Ruling confirms my interpretation of Erskine May—that we are in order providing we talk about matters contained in the Bill. May I say, for the benefit of the Minister of State, that we stray out of order if we try to introduce matters not referred to in the Bill.
Subsection (2) of Clause 5, which deals with public order and public safety,


provides that the Isle of Wight County Council may:
serve a counter-notice on the person giving such notice, requiring him to comply with such reasonable terms or conditions as they think fit with respect to water supply and securing sanitary conditions, public order and public safety and for the prevention of nuisance".
I wish to pray in aid in support of my argument the report of the Secretary of State to the Committee. It says:
The Secretary of State recommends that the words 'public order'
—those are the words in subsection (2)—
should be deleted. He considers that the term 'nuisance' should be defined as a statutory nuisance within the meaning of the Public Health Acts".
The Secretary of State, with all the advice available to him, has made a clear recommendation that the words "public order" should be removed from the Bill, and yet hon. Members opposite, I assume with the aid of the Whip which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and others have sent out, are prepared to steamroller the Bill through as if it were an essential piece of legislation. It flies in the face of all reasonable men who believe in the right of free assembly subject to reasonable laws. It flies in the face of the recommendation which the Secretary of State made to the Committee. I hope that, bearing in mind Clause 5(2), the House will think very carefully before it allows the Bill to proceed further.
Subsection (3) of Clause 5 refers to the necessity for an occupier as well as the promoter to be liable in law for the failure of the organisers in respect of any of the provisions of the Clause. I have entered into a dispute with my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) about this point in the Bill. Therefore, I shall not go over those arguments in great detail, but only say again that it would be a wrong step for this House to agree to this private Member's Bill, to a departure from the general principles of law so that the responsibilities at law of a person who hires a piece of property fall upon the owner of that site or piece of machinery.
By subsection (4) the Clause goes on to lay down:
If the Council have reason to believe that any assembly to be held in the county will he an assembly to which this section applies but no notice has been given to them thereof

under subsection (1) of this section, by the person intending to hold the same or by the occupier…they may as soon as reasonably practicable after the intention to hold the same has come to their knowledge serve"—
notice to supply information and money required.
As drafted, that subsection is so wide that, in my judgment, it is conferring upon the County Council of the Isle of Wight a right to harass any organisation which wishes to hold an overnight assembly on the Isle of Wight, whether that organisation is the Boys' Brigade, or the Boy Scouts—whatever it may be. You name the organisation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that Clause would give the county council the right to say, irrespective of the numbers involved or the intentions of the promoters—

Mr. Woodnutt: Oh, no. This applies to assemblies of more than 5,000 people. It cannot apply to the Boy Scouts.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I read out the words of the subsection because they give the county council, if it has reason to believe that an assembly proposed to be held comes within the provisions of the Clause, the right to do certain things; the Clause does not lay down any restriction. The Clause does say not more than 5,000, but all the county council has to do is to say, "It is an assembly which we believe may exceed 5,000". Whether or not it is the intention of the promoters to have more than 5,000 is completely immaterial. Under this subsection the county council will have power to harass any bona fide organisation which wishes to hold an assembly on the Isle of Wight.
Quite frankly I would make it clear to the House that I do not trust the County Council of the Isle of Wight to exercise such a wide power. I would not trust the Government to exercise such wide powers in a matter of the basic British freedom—the right of assembly. This is what the county council wants to do: it wants to have the power to harass, to stop, what it, in its own judgment, may consider to be an undesirable gathering, and it wants to have the right to require deposits of money to be laid down if it believes—as it can, under the subsection, say that it believes—that the assembly may exceed 5,000. So I say again that the Boy Scouts could come along, a group of young people not connected with any


recognised youth movement could come along, and then because they wear their hair very long or they have beards, somebody on the county council can say, "This is an assembly which may exceed 5,000, and therefore we require them to put down a deposit of x amount of money." This could be a harassment which could be used by the county council and it would destroy that fundamental freedom of the right of assembly, a right which we have treasured for so long.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am fascinated by this argument about people who are promoting this sort of festival being required to put down an x amount of pounds for the privilege of doing so. My hon. Friend is surely aware that the people who promote these things commercially require the customers to put down x pounds for admission at the gate, and expect to make great profits out of the festival? What is the difference? It is no use quoting this libertarian argument to me. I have been here too long to listen to this sort of stuff without protest. These festivals are not necessarily cultural. They are purely commercial. Whether the people who come to them are young or old does not matter; they have to pay at the gate; and the promoters should provide a security for costs—because they can disappear to America once a festival is over.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I have already conceded my acceptance of some need of public legislation to deal with abuses, and my hon. Friend really should not try to—I will not use the word "twist", for that would be unfair to him—misinterpret my argument as he has done. Of course commercial organisations selling tickets in advance may require the participants, the consumers, to put down a deposit, a payment in anticipation, but I beg my hon. Friend to recognise that Clause 5(4) does not deal only with public festivals but would give to the County Council of the Isle of Wight means by which it could harass any organisation or any group of young people who might wish to have an overnight gathering, whether a two-day camp, or whatever it might be, on the Isle of Wight. Subsection (4) is so widely drawn.
The Clause lays down that the promoters of an assembly coming within the terms of the Bill will be required to put down as a deposit such sums as the county council determine to be reasonable in respect of the extra expenses incurred by "any authority". Subsection (13) says:
In this section 'authority' means the Council, a local authority, the police authority, the river and water authority, or any other body discharging functions in the county in pursuance of statutory powers.
So a deposit is required to be put down by a promoter, whether he be an incompetent promoter of a festival which will take in people in excess of the numbers which are reasonable, or a competent promoter of a reasonable assembly. He is required to put down as a deposit a sum to cover the expenses of all those authorities, including the police authority.
What did the Secretary of State say in his report to the Committee? He took exception to this broad principle. He sought in his recommendations to leave out the "police authority" from that definition. I completely agree with that view which he took on the advice given to him. He took as an illustration a football match. If a police constable is invited to a site where a football match is to be played, the promoters have to pay for that police constable's services. Quite right and proper. If a police constable is invited to a large assembly on the Isle of Wight, it is quite right and proper that the promoters of the assembly should pay for the police constable's services.
By saying "any expense incurred by the police authority" the council is going further. The council is interested not in control but in completely stopping the right of free assembly. A policeman outside a football ground who is controlling the crowd and doing the normal duty of a police officer is paid for by the community as a whole. The Isle of Wight County Council is departing from this general principle and saying that the cost of policemen, whatever function they may be performing, shall be paid for by the promoters if the function is remotely connected with the pop festival. So a principle will be applied to the Isle of Wight which is not accepted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department


as applying to the rest of the United Kingdom.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite next attend the Conservative Party conference there are likely to be many citizens demonstrating outside the Conference Hall in indignation at the things that this miserable Government have inflicted upon the nation. I will not develop this theme because I have noticed hon. Gentlemen looking at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for protection against the charge that I am making.

Mr. Woodnutt: I am not taking any notice of the last bit of nonsense, but will the hon. Gentleman read to the House the Clause which says that the Isle of Wight County Council will be able to charge the whole of the cost of the police?

Mr. Wellbeloved: Clause 5(7) reads:
A person giving notice under subsection (1) of this section or information under subsection (4) thereof shall deposit with the Council by way of security the amount required by the Council under subsection (3) of this section and shall also give to the Council a bond of reasonable amount with a sufficient surety to be approved by the Council for the payment of the amount which the person giving the notice or information may be liable to pay to the Council in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section.
The hon. Gentleman will see that, taking subsections (7), (3), (6), and (13) together, this hears out precisely what the Secretary of State for the Home Department said in relation to the Bill when it was before the Committee.
As there is some confusion in the hon. Gentleman's mind, I will quote what the Secretary of State for the Home Department said:
The Secretary of State considers that the efficacy of voluntary arrangements should be more fully tested and he takes the view meanwhile that those provisions of subsection (2) relating to public order and the prevention of nuisance (other than statutory nuisance) are open to objection. The costs of policing a festival site are high, but if police were required to perform crowd-control duties on the site itself, the organisers would normally be required to meet the cost in accordance with the usual arrangements for policing private property. In general, however, it is accepted that, while the organisers of events (such as football matches) that attract large crowds pay for the police employed inside the grounds the police are responsible for policing public places outside. The Secretary of State sees no reason to distinguish in that respect

between "pop" festivals and other large assemblies, as would appear to be intended, by the inclusion of the words 'police authority' in subsection (13).
In conclusion, this Clause, which deals with public order on the Isle of Wight in respect of pop festivals, is an unjustifiable and unwarrantable incursion into the freedom of the people. The Secretary of State for the Home Department concurred generally with that judgment in his recommendations to the Committee. The Isle of Wight County Council would do much better to direct its attention to other matters of public interest in the area rather than attempt by this Bill to ensure that the County Council of the Isle of Wight shall have the power to stop any festival or gathering which it considers undesirable. This is an affront to our democratic principles, and I hope the House will reject it.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gorden: I do not intend to enter into argument about the Bill in any detail, or to take issue with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on the merits of the individual Clauses. I am no more qualified than he is to reject the findings of the four hon. Members who adjudicated in Committee on the terms of the Bill. They did this at the request of the House of Commons and have rendered good service to the House.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford said that this was not a suitable Bill to bring before the House and that it should be brought by the Government and not by the Isle of Wight. The answer is that the House has given a Second Reading to a Bill which has been brought, quite properly, by the Isle of Wight County Council. It is common practice for local authorities to bring Bills before the House. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to say that it is not a proper Bill to be brought before the House when this question was properly and fully settled on Second Reading.

Mr. Driberg: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present on Second Reading, but if he was not he will have read the debate in HANSARD. He will know that several hon. Members on both sides of the House—not only opponents of the Bill—said that this matter should be dealt with in a public


Bill. The Minister who replied suggested vaguely that the Government would consider whether there should be a public Bill. We shall possibly hear more about this tonight from the Minister. This was felt very strongly by hon. Members who were not opposed in principle to the Bill.

Mr. Gurden: I am saying that this matter has been settled by a Division in this House on Second Reading. Therefore, the matter is no longer at issue. In fact, it probably is not right to bring up the matter tonight.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned, probably by accident, that this was a Private Member's Bill. It was said that my hon. Friend and a spokesman for the Government were expected to get up first to speak and accusations were made about that matter. That has nothing at all to do with it. This is not a Government Bill, it is not my hon. Friend's Bill, nor is it my Bill. It is a Bill brought by the Isle of Wight. It is beyond me why the hon. Gentleman should make such accusations.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misconstrue what I have said. It is normal that when a Private Bill is promoted by a private organisation, whether by a county council or some other body, and is before the House, an hon. Member is in charge of the Bill here. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) was in charge of the Bill on Second Reading. He has shown a great interest in the Bill and has received considerable publicity in his own area for his skill in conducting the Measure through the House. I should have thought that, as a matter of courtesy, he would have presented it again today.

Mr. Gurden: That is absolutely wrong. My hon. Friend has no responsibility of that kind at all. The hon. Gentleman should know that. The Bill came before the House for Second Reading and was then sent to a Committee. It is not for any hon. Member here to take responsibility for the Bill when it comes back from Committee.
The House gave the Bill a Second Reading—it could have rejected it, but did not do so—and requested four of our

colleagues, two from each side of the House, to consider fully every aspect of the Bill and to listen to all the evidence. The Committee apparently took all the evidence into account and its members alone are the only people qualified to know whether the Bill was properly dealt with.

Mr. Wellbeloved: No.

Mr. Gurden: Yes, because they heard the whole of the evidence.

Mr. Wellbeloved: And it has all been published.

Mr. Gurden: They alone know the full facts and they adjudicated upon the matter. Those four hon. Members did a service, not to the Government or to the Opposition or to any individuals, but a service to the House. They faithfully and properly carried out that service for the House as a whole. They had no interest whatever in the promoters of the Bill or its opponents. They declared that they had no personal interest in the Bill. I suggest that before we oppose this Bill, or any other Private Bill, we should have regard to the service which those hon. Members did for the House.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although it is permissible to make a point en passant, it is surely hardly appropriate to continue a point to the extent that the hon. Member is doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is not out of order at this stage. I will keep a particular eye upon him.

Mr. Gurden: I am about to conclude what I have to say. My experience of private Bills is that the Members who serve on such Committees carry out their work extremely well. They must be in attendance at the Committee for the whole of its sittings, they have to study the whole of the evidence and must come to a decision in an unbiased fashion. Therefore, before the House seeks to reject or criticise the Bill, hon. Members should be mindful of the comments I have made.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: There are rare occasions in this House when we are in a position to discuss an important Measure on non-party lines, and


this is one of them. This is an occasion on which the House is asked to endorse action already taken by a group of its Members who have considered the earlier stages of the Bill.
I must protest as mildly as I can that anybody on my side of the House seeks to suggest that because this is a county council Bill promoted by the Isle of Wight the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) in some subtle or mysterious way intervened during the Committee stage. That would be quite wrong. In fact, it displays a deplorable ignorance of Private Bill procedure in this House. One of the first disqualifications of any hon. Member for taking part in the judicial functions of a Private Bill Committee is that he has any remote personal vested interest in the subject matter of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) made use in his speech of the term "Private Member's Bill", obviously wishing to convey to the House that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had in some way promoted this Bill, which is quite untrue. The hon. Gentleman was not allowed to function on the Bill in its judicial stages because he was disqualified by the rules of procedure in the House from so doing.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If I used the term "Private Member's Bill" it was obviously a slip of the tongue. I do not recall using that particular term. It is a Private Bill promoted by a county council to which the hon. Member on Second Reading, in the broad terms as defined in Erskine May, was the Member in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Woodnutt: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has referred to me as the Member in charge of the Bill all the way through his remarks. I am not the Member in charge. I spoke upon and introduced the Bill on Second Reading but I am not the Member in charge.

Mr. Price: I do not think we need pursue that will-o'-the-wisp very far. The Bill during its important Committee stage in this House was considered by two Conservative and two Labour Members. Those hon. Members carried out their onerous duties without payment or reward, and unless there was something

fundamentally wrong with the judicial procedure—

Mr. Driberg: I hope that my hon. Friend is not going quite as far as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), who seems to be suggesting that, therefore, we in this House tonight have no right to utter a word or comment upon the findings of the Committee. Sometimes the House rejects the recommendations of a Select Committee.

Mr. Price: I accept that fully. This is a matter for the House. If I conveyed any impression that no one had the right to make objection or criticism, I must have been using language more loosely than I do on other occasions. I do not want anyone to think that I have become so depraved as to deny the right of hon. Members of this House to criticise. However, that right is not always exercised as critically and sceptically as it should be.
The opponents of the Bill say that they agree that there are circumstances, of which this may be one, in which a public nuisance or a threat to public order may arise where the Government of the day have a responsibility, and that it should not rest with local authorities like the Isle of Wight County Council to take it upon themselves to promote private legislation to protect the interests of their ratepayers and local populations. I do not want to bowdlerise or misrepresent the argument. They say that they do not disagree in principle that something needs to be done to control vast, disorderly assemblies of large numbers of people—in one case, up to ¼ million people—but that this is such a big task that the Government should take responsibility.
If someone in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford gave three months' notice of his intention to bring in¼million people and dump them in a local public park for a musical, sporting or other cultural activity, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be equally vigorous and eloquent in his protest that bloody murder was being done in his constituency.
The argument that until we have universal application of something desirable, no pioneer would do anything is completely bogus, even from a Socialist point of view. If Manchester Corporation had not taken powers in this House many


years ago to enable it to build up Manchester Airport, the second most important in England, long before the British Airports Authority, it would not have existed today. If Margaret McMillan had not started the first nursery school in Deptford and laid down the foundations of the nursery school system long before the legislators took charge of it, it is probable that we should still have been awaiting that development. So many of our great developments started in this way. If the Rochdale pioneers and Robert Owen, whose bicentenary has been celebrated this week, had not started the Rochdale Pioneers Co-operative Society, our great co-operative movement might not have been born and would not have developed in the way that we have seen. It is quite bogus to say that, however desirable a thing is, private initiative should not be taken in a pioneering spirit to create it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Perhaps I might add a more recent example to those that the hon. Gentleman has provided of ways in which a Government can be influenced. In the last Parliament, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office, there was a Bill to lay down a reservoir in Rutland. It was a Private Bill. It was fought very hard on the Floor of the House by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, with the support of a number of his hon. Friends. We nearly won the day, but not quite. However, we made such an impact on the Government that they had to proceed in a way which has taken reservoirs out of the realm of the Private Bill procedure. In the same way, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) may be a pioneer if he forces the Government to take action on the matters dealt with in this Bill.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has succeeded in getting those facts on record. I have no doubt that that will please the people of Rutland.
This is a serious matter. It deals with a source of growing public concern, the assembly of large numbers of people without proper control. Quite apart from the merits of the Bill, which have been dissected by its critics, so long as we have a procedure under which Private Bills

can be promoted and financed without cost to this House and so long as this House understands that that procedure, archaic though it may be, is an integral part of our parliamentary system, we should honour it and support those hon. Members, whoever they may be, who recommend that a certain measure is desirable in the public interest or in the interests of those who promote it.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: Listening to the debate, I have been prompted to ask what are the motives behind the opposition to the Bill from the outset by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). Is it that, by permitting these people to go to the Isle of Wight, they wish to protect themselves ultimately from influxes at Erith and Crayford or Barking Creek? I cannot imagine anyone wanting to go to either place.
Both hon. Members represent constituencies which are members of the Greater London Council. I challenge them both to say whether they have any idea of the powers of the Greater London Council in these matters. I assure them that the Isle of Wight is not asking for any greater powers than the Greater London Council has at the moment, without protest from either hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Driberg: Since the hon. Gentleman challenges us, may I point out that there is a slight difference between a crowded urban area and a rural area.

Mr. Cooper: I suggest that when we are talking about a quarter of a million or up to half a million people, it does not matter whether it is an urban or a rural area; it is a very serious problem. When we put a quarter of a million or more people on to farms where there is no proper sewage or other services for them, I suggest that the residents of the Isle of Wight are entitled to come to this House and ask for protection.

Mr. Wellbeloved: rose—

Mr. Cooper: I ask the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford not to interrupt me at the moment. He is a rare disciple of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson). He never uses


one word where two will do. This evening the hon. Gentleman spoke for three quarters of an hour and told us nothing.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman put out a challenge concerning the powers held by the Greater London Council. I should be delighted to hear from him the Act, and the year, which gives the G.L.C. powers similar to those contained in Clause 5. If the hon. Gentleman will give me the details, I shall leave the Chamber and get the Act. If he is correct, my case falls. I ask him to give me, chapter and verse, the powers which he alleges the G.L.C. has.

Mr. Cooper: I invite the hon. Gentleman to think of what happens practically every week in this country where large numbers of people assemble. The G.L.C. has powers, which it takes, to prevent people assembling in all kinds of places. It has power to call in the police to prevent certain incidents happening. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny things of this kind. Every Sunday we have to put up with demonstrations and protests within this great city which the Greater London Council, together with the Commissioner of Police, has to try to contain.
I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), who represents his constituents in a most able manner, is entitled to ask this House that his constituency be protected from further incursions. I am sure that if this kind of thing happened in either Barking or Erith and Crayford, hon. Gentlemen representing those constituencies would be the first to protest and come to this House asking for powers to protect their constituencies. Frankly, I should be astonished and dismayed if they did not.
We are entitled to live in an orderly way in which, shall we say, convention has a place, so that people can live as undisturbed a life as possible. I remind the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that this Bill, which he is now opposing, received its Second Reading, despite the vehement arguments and opposition of himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Barking, by a majority of 62 to 2. That is all that the opposition could muster against the Bill. Tonight, I charge them with wasting the time of this House

on a Bill which they know the residents of the Isle of Wight need and have a right to demand from this House.
I have been a Member of this House for about 18 years. In that time there has always been a tradition that when a Private Bill is promoted by a local authority it generally has the acceptance of the House because the House accepts that the local authority needs those powers. The argument is heard upstairs, usually by a Committee of two or three hon. Members from either side.
I remind the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that on Second Reading I had to give him a little lesson on Private Bill procedure, which he obviously knew nothing about. This procedure has been operated on this occasion, and it is the right procedure. A Select Committee of the House, comprising two Members of the Labour Party and two Members of the Conservative Party, has dissected the Bill, examined it, approved it, amended it where necessary, and sent it back to this Chamber for approval. I submit that in accordance with our best traditions we should accept the Select Committee's Report and give the Bill a Third Reading.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: I came to the House tonight as a supporter of the Bill, because I have experience as the Member of Parliament for a constituency which has been hit hard by a pop festival.
I was very much persuaded by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). He did not overstate his case. He accepted, as I do, the need for public legislation to deal with the problem. The danger of passing this legislation is that it will lead to a succession of Private Bills from counties hit one way or another—

Mr. Gurden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can overhear some criticism of you in the Chair. I am not sure, but I believe that it is about the selection that you have made of hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I heard no such thing.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. If an hon. Member makes the kind of allegation made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden),


surely it is incumbent upon him to charge the hon. Member concerned to repeat his statement? If the hon. Member who raises the point of order does not take that action, he ought to withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Golding: You will realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is an occupational hazard I face, that of being interrupted. I hope that hon. Members will listen to the arguments, rather than bicker across the Floor of the House.
I wonder whether, by the Bill, the Isle of Wight County Council is making the situation worse for constituencies such as mine. Because of the restrictions which the promoters of the Bill are seeking to impose, pop promoters may prefer to take concerts to Keele rather than face the rigours of the administrative rules that will operate in the Isle of Wight.
I believe that there is no need for legislation of this kind for the purpose of bringing about a greater degree of public order. The pop festival that I saw did not present any problems of public order. Before the festival was held I expressed grave doubts about what might happen, but the local police assured me that they were able to control the situation. I was in fact taken around the festival by the chief superintendent, and I realised that my fears were groundless.
It is not necessary to have legislation of this kind to deal with the public order aspects of the holding of pop festivals, but there is a need to clarify the powers of local authorities. My local authority, Newcastle Rural District Council, found it very difficult to discover precisely what powers it had, and it appears that the administrative procedures are not very well defined. One argument for having four months' notice of a festival is that it gives local authorities the chance to come to grips with the problems which the holding of the festival creates. There is a case for legislation to tackle the administrative problems facing local authorities. I think, too, that there is a strong case for the inclusion of a deposit requirement.
The problem of pop festivals does not arise from the young people who attend them; in my experience they are well

behaved. They are entitled to attend pop concerts, and to enjoy them in their own way. I emphasise the fact that the young people who came to Newcastle-under-Lyme were well behaved. The problem is to know how to control the promoters. I hope that my hon. Friends do not assume that talking in terms of the control of pop concerts one is automatically attacking the youngsters who attend them. On the contrary, I am attacking the promoters, because they are often people who have come together for a quick financial killing out of the youngsters.
During the pop festival that took place in my constituency, my biggest complaint arose from the exploitation of the youngsters who attended by the people who ran the refreshment bars, and so on. A deposit should be required, because promoters can be fly-by-nights. After the concert is held they can easily arrange their financial affairs so that they can liquidate their company, which may owe money to the police, local landowners, and other local people. We require legislation to control the activities of such promoters.
I oppose the Bill not because I do not believe that legislation is required but because I have been persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford that it is probably wrong to tackle the problem by way of a Private Bill. I am also worried because the Bill does not go to the heart of the problem, namely, the control of the promoters.

8.42 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): It may be convenient if I intervene briefly now in order to indicate the Government's view of the Bill. This is a Private Bill, which received a Second Reading in the House. It consists of 58 Clauses and two Schedules, and deals with many different points, including such matters as power to borrow and power to make payments of superannuation.
I was the Government spokesman in the Second Reading debate, and I expressed reservations about Clauses 5, 8 and 26. After a Bill has received a Second Reading, negotiations normally take place between the promoters of the Bill—the Isle of Wight County Council in this case—and those people who may


feel that the Bill needs amending in some way—Government Departments or petitioners against the Bill.
The suggestions made by the Government in respect of Clauses 8 and 26 were accepted in full by the promoters. In view of the debate which has taken place it is worth reminding the House that Clause 5 is only one of the Clauses in a Bill that involved the ratepayers of the island in considerable expenditure. The promoters have accepted the larger part of the recommendations put forward in the report on behalf of my right hon. Friend, relating to Clause 5.
The only major point outstanding is the question of the definition of "public order". The most important point accepted by the promoters related to the question of appeals. The Bill now includes a provision for appeal to the courts by a person aggrieved by any action of the county council in refusing an application, or attaching onerous conditions. This is a most important point. If the Bill is allowed to proceed further, there will be proceedings in another place, where points of detail can be discussed.

Mr. Gurden: Does not my right hon. Friend agree with me that this is not a Government matter but a House of Commons matter and that, whatever the Government's feelings are, or could have been, this is a matter purely for the House to settle?

Mr. Sharples: I would entirely agree, and it is not normal for a Minister to intervene on a Private Bill, but I thought that, for the convenience of the House, it would be courteous. There is, of course, no Government responsibility for the Bill.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Gentleman said that the report from the Home Office dealt with three Clauses about which the Government were worried and that two of the recommendations on Clauses 8 and 26, had been accepted. But Clause 5 is a very long Clause, so he may not be right to say that the greater part has been accepted.

Mr. Sharples: The greater part has been accepted. The report dealt, of course, with a large number of details like penalties and to a great extent those have been accepted. The point to which we attached the greatest importance was

the question of appeals, which was a question of principle for the Home Office.

Mr. Loughlin: Clause 26 does not relate to public order or assembly but to the council's power to borrow money. I want to get clear what the promoters have actually agreed to.

Mr. Sharples: These were detailed points put forward on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and they were discussed in the normal way before the Committee. We feel that the Bill should be allowed to proceed.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Hon. Members opposite have made accusations about the motives of those who oppose the Bill. It has been said that one of the reasons why my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) are opposing the Bill is that their constituencies are urban and the Isle of Wight is rural, and so they need not bother about Bills of this kind. Perhaps, subconsciously at least, this is their motivation—

Mr. Driberg: It is not.

Mr. Loughlin: I would not like to argue that. I will be generous enough, as one who represents a rural constituency, to concede that their motivation is an abhorrence of Clause 5, which seeks to do nothing other than stop youngsters indulging in festivals of this kind.
In my constituency there is the Forest of Dean. It is a national park. Every week of the tourist season we have an enormous influx of people who want to enjoy the countryside. It is true that we have not had any pop festivals so far, but every week, starting from immediately after Easter and going on until late in the year, somewhere around September, we have an influx of visitors into the Forest of Dean and we make provision for them.
The Forest is administered by the Forestry Commission, and in all the areas of the forest there are picnic sites, camping and caravan sites and all the amenities that are required to provide for the enjoyment of the environment by all sorts of people. At least in one respect therefore, no one on the Government benches can claim that I am motivated by my urban constituency.
There has been a lot of discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price)—I do not know whether it is "Westhowton" or "Westhorton"; it depends which side of the line across the Midlands one is. It is "horton" at the top and "howton" at the bottom.

Mr. J. T. Price: We speak English in my constituency.

Mr. Loughlin: Hon. Members opposite have complained about the impudence almost of hon. Members who have opposed the decision of a Committee which has considered a Bill of this kind. I have known the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) a long time. I understand that he was associated with Wathes, Codtell and Gurden, one of the leading milk firms in Birmingham. From my experience of the hon. Member in the discussions we have had and the type of interventions he has made, it must have been goats' milk because his contributions in the House are so trivial and so out of accord with the type of people he represents that he ought not to be here.
When the hon. Member tries to lecture me on the procedures of the House, when, in his mealy-mouthed fashion, he says, "Well, Mr. Speaker, four Members of the House have discussed this matter and we ought to concede them the right to do so", he is the last person who will lecture the House, or this side of it, and get away with it. We as a House have a perfect right to discuss—

Mr. Gurden: rose—

Mr. Loughlin: I will give away presently. The hon. Member will catch it if he tries to be clever.
We have a right to discuss any Bill that has gone into Committee, and we have a right at any time to overturn the decision of the Committee. If we did not have that right, the Bill would not be before us tonight. Indeed, the procedures of the House, which allow the Bill to come back to us from the Committee, underline the inherent right of the House to reject or accept a decision of a Committee.

Mr. Gurden: Nothing has been said tonight to deny hon. Members the right

to oppose the Bill. I said that we should have regard for what four hon. Members did in Committee. They were better qualified, having listened to all the evidence, to judge the Bill.

Mr. Loughlin: When in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT we read the whole tenor of the hon. Gentleman's comments, we will see that he suggested that it would be improper for the House to reject the recommendations of a Committee composed of two hon. Members from each side. If that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention—and I gather from some faintly murmured remarks from my hon. Friends that they, too, had my impression—then I can only say that I must be dimmer than I thought I was. I do not see anything wrong in our rejecting the recommendations of any selected number of hon. Members who get together in a committee to consider Bills of this kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton took us on a tour. We went to see the Rochdale Pioneers and Margaret McMillan, ending up at the Rutland Reservoir.

Mr. J. T. Price: My hon. Friend was obviously not listening to my remarks.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member for Selly Oak argued that the Government had certain reservations on Second Reading about Clauses 5, 8 and 26. I would have thought that the Government's main reservations were about Clause 5, which is extremely comprehensive and deals with every aspect of the holding of the sort of assemblies with which we are concerned. This is really a question of whether or not we should allow such assemblies to take place. Clause 5 is designed not to regulate assemblies but to ensure that festivals of this kind do not take place on the Isle of Wight in future.

Mr. Woodnutt: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in that assumption. If he reads the Clause carefully he will see that it is designed to ensure some decent control over these large events in the open and not to ban them.

Mr. Loughlin: I would not like to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that I have a good deal of affection for him. I am only sorry that I find myself on the opposite side tonight. I accept


that he firmly believes that the intention is to restrict assemblies. I shall not read out all the subsections of the Clause or go into detail, but when one looks at them together one can only conclude that the Bill's primary intention is to ensure that no further festivals of this kind take place on the Isle of Wight.
I do not object to that. I do not object to the elected people of any area taking precautions against something with which they disagree. I do not disagree with that. What worries me is that if the Isle of Wight can promote such a Bill and, in so doing, ensure that there cannot be within its territory a festival of the kind that has taken place there in the past, it is equally proper for every area of the country to promote a similar type of Bill to prohibit such assemblies. On the first principle, one can only conclude that it is not right and proper that a particular section of the community should promote Bills of this kind because it is obviously a matter of national importance.
But if the Isle of Wight has a right to promote such a Bill, and if the House allows it to go through, we may have the following situation. Another area—say, Gloucestershire County Council, my own county council—may decide that if the Isle of Wight would not tolerate such assemblies because someone on the Island thought that they were assemblies which ought not to be tolerated, the Gloucestershire County Council should take the same view and promote a Bill which, no matter how disguised, is designed to prohibit festivals of this kind. One can see that very quickly, once this psychology had been built up, all the areas of the country which were likely to attract pop festivals would adopt precisely the same attitude lest they were the recipients of, say, 150,000 or more people.

Mr. Woodnutt: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again, but does he not know that the County Councils Association, of which the Gloucestershire County Council is a member, supports the Bill and has requested the Government to pass legislation in similar terms to Clause 5, and that this also has the support of all the other local authority associations?

Mr. Loughlin: Yes, that is precisely what I am frightened about, because the Gloucestershire County Council and other

county councils are not, by and large, red-hot seats of Socialism. I know my county council, and when I think in terms of county councillors, with the possible exception of the Forest of Dean, I think of lieutenant-colonels, the Lord Beaufort and one or two others. I know that they are not interested in pop festivals. The Gloucestershire County Council would oppose any Bill which sought to prohibit the horse trials at Badminton or horse trials of any kind.

Mr. Ray Mawby: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any of the examples he has given which take place between midnight and 6 a.m. for a period of three hours or more?

Mr. Loughlin: After the jumping has finished at a reasonably early hour at horse trials, what takes place then is a different kettle of fish and may well be illegal, but more recently we have been more liberal about morality.
I repeat that the question is to what extent the Bill constitutes a precedent which will enable other areas to introduce similar Bills designed for the same purpose prior to the Government's taking some action, if any. The Government are composed of people who spoke about action, not words, but about the only action for which this Government are noted has been Ministers making gaffes at week ends.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) bothers me because he confirms my fears. He says that the Gloucestershire County Council and other county councils support the purposes of the Bill and believe that it is right that the Isle of Wight should be able to prohibit pop festivals on the island. The hon. Gentleman says that other county councils hope that the Government will take action to deal with the situation at a national level.
I am not against pop festivals. More nonsense is talked about young people and those who attend pop festivals than about any other subject.

Mr. Swain: Bar politics.

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend knows how much nonsense is spoken in politics. He is an expert.
We are trying to judge youngsters using our standards. I know that when a youngster puts on the television or radio


he turns the volume high and it drives me barmy. They have different decible standards but that is the only thing on which we can fault them. There is less immorality. There may be some sexual immorality, but there is less in a pop festival—

Mr. Woodnutt: On a point of order. This is off the point of the Bill. The Bill does not deal with long hair, morality or anything of this nature. It is concerned with public health.

Mr. Loughlin: It may be that I am out of order. The alternative to listening to me as I am performing now is for me to relate every part of my argument to Clause 5. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to talk out the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are hon. Members who wish to speak and it is the usual courtesy of the House to provide that opportunity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the Bill.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not think that you have the right to instruct me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair was not instructing the hon. Member, as the hon. Member knows, but merely drawing attention to the fact that there is a Bill under consideration.

Mr. Loughlin: As long as you are not instructing me, as long as you are drawing my attention to what might be the courtesies of the House, I am satisfied. It is not perhaps in accordance with the traditions of this House to interrupt an hon. Member—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to criticise the Chair.

Mr. Loughlin: I am not criticising the Chair. What I am saying is that the Chair does not have absolute rights in this House and if the Chair acts in an improper way I am entitled to draw the Chair's attention to it. As to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, all I can say is that I have not strayed out of order during the debate. Every remark which I have made—and intend to make—reflects the notes that I took on every speech in the debate. The hon. Member can see that it is no

orderly note-taking; it is the sort of note-taking we do in this House. If I am out of order, then at least 50 per cent. of those who preceded me have been equally out of order.
Clause 5 appears to be designed in the main to stop pop festivals. It is so designed because it is subsequent to the holding of pop festivals in the Isle of Wight.
The intention of Clause 5 is to impose onerous terms on any organiser of assemblies in the county of—according to subsection (12)—
more than 5.000 people in the open which continues for a period of three hours or more between midnight and 6 o'clock the following morning.
What other assemblies are held in the open and continue
for a period of three hours or more between midnight and 6 o'clock the following morning"?
I would never charge the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight with sponsoring the Bill, because it is essentially a Private Bill, but he has a primary interest in it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is piloting it."] I will not accept that the hon. Gentleman is piloting it. He has a primary interest, because he has a predominant constituency interest to ensure that the Bill is passed. I do not think I am being unfair to him.
If the hon. Gentleman has a primary interest in the Bill, it presupposes that he has gone into fairly full detail about the reasons for and purposes of the Bill. It presupposes that he has discussions with his county council and that in those discussions the county council has told him why the Bill is necessary. The county council will have accepted that, as the hon. Member for the constituency, he has a primary interest in the Bill and would need to be briefed to the fullest possible extent on it.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) is an alderman of the county council, so naturally lie is for the Bill.

Mr. Loughlin: That merely reinforces what I have said. If the hon. Gentleman had not been directly associated with the county council I would still have expected the county council to brief him to the fullest extent. If he is also an alderman of the county council there is a far greater responsibility on the council


officials to give him an absolute and complete briefing, because any defect in the briefing would reflect on the hon. Gentleman, not only as a Member of the House, but as a member of the council. It can therefore be reasonably assumed that the hon. Gentleman has been told what is in the county council's mind concerning the Clause. It is reasonable for us to assume that, when the discussions took place, the hon. Gentleman said, "What assemblies does this part of the Clause refer to? Does it refer to the Boy Scouts? Does it refer to day trippers? Or to whom does it refer?" I am perfectly willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman now if he will indicate his desire to explain to us to what assemblies, other than pop festivals, this Clause relates. I do not think he can, because it relates to pop festivals.
Clause 5 of the Bill challenges the right of assembly of a very large section of our younger community. Although this Bill, if it is consented to, will apply to the Isle of Wight and will restrict assembly in the Isle of Wight, it can be made a precedent, as I argued earlier, for other county councils and other authorities in this country, a precedent which they can follow, so that they can seek to take powers similar to those in this Bill. Indeed, on the basis of this Bill, after its passage, the Government could say, "We have a mandate from the House to make a provision of this kind applicable at the national level." For if the House passes this Bill applicable to the Isle of Wight what purpose is there in the House refusing to agree to a similar Bill at the national level?

Mr. J. T. Price: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. This may give him a chance to get his breath back. Let me put this to my hon. Friend, whose full deployment of his arguments we are all enjoying—although we have other business, too, tonight—that I recently, in the last few days, presided over a Committee on another Private Bill dealing with another important matter—antipollution. I must not discuss the merits of that Measure now. I know that. However, this argument was deployed most forcefully on behalf of the objectors to that Bill to give powers to London to arrest pollution in this city. They said that if we gave powers to this city others might want them, but this is not an

argument worthy of my hon. Friend, for, whether the Bill will or will not create a precedent, we are dealing with the merits of the Bill under procedure which the House has created and accepted, the Private Bill procedure.

Mr. Loughlin: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I dealt with his argument about the validity or otherwise of this House dealing with this Bill tonight when he, unfortunately, had to leave the Chamber for a time.

Mr. J. T. Price: I have to leave it sometimes.

Mr. Loughlin: I am not complaining. I said my hon. Friend had to leave the Chamber for some time. As to his second argument over another Bill to which he referred, I am very reluctant to enter into an argument on that, because I do not know the full circumstances about which he talked.
What I was saying was that what we have to be concerned about are the implications of Clause 5 of this Bill. It is a dangerous precedent to set and a dangerous weapon to give to the Government. If the Bill goes through, the Government may decide that these powers can be given to other local authorities, and this would mean that no pop festivals could be held in the country.

Mr. Woodnutt: Nonsense.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is nonsense, but I invite him to examine the arguments in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North): Nonsense.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman has just walked into the Chamber—he has just come back from the bar no doubt. No argument has been advanced tonight by any hon. Member on the Government side to justify the abolition of pop festivals, as Clause 5 will do.

Mr. Woodnutt: Nonsense.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman can repeat in his parrot-like fashion the word "nonsense", but he has not yet sought to address the House on this Bill in which he has a primary interest. I am one of the later speakers in the debate,


and the hon. Gentleman has not sought to intervene—

Mr. Woodnutt: Wait for it.

Mr. Loughlin: I have repeatedly challenged the hon. Member to tell us what is in the mind of the Isle of Wight County Council. A few minutes ago I dealt with subsection (12) and asked him to tell me what other assemblies are referred to in Clause 5(12).

Mr. Woodnutt: If the hon. Gentleman sits down in time I will deal with it.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman should know that I will sit down in my own time. He has intervened time and time again, as will be seen in HANSARD tomorrow. I am concerned about the principle enshrined in Clause 5. If the hon. Gentleman can convince me that the Bill is not designed to deal with the pop festival, I shall quite likely change my mind, even at this stage. I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell me what assembly other than pop festivals are referred to in Clause 5? The hon. Gentleman does not respond, because he knows, as we all know, that the Bill is designed solely to stop pop festivals.

Mr. Mawby: It is not. The hon. Gentleman should read the Clause.

Mr. Loughlin: Will someone take the hon. Member out?
We in this country have the weird idea that the youngsters are immoral and peculiar, and that because they have long hair and beards they are to be despised. It is the guilt complex of the hon. Gentleman that motivates Bills of this kind. I say that again and again and again.

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been out wandering round the House and when I came back the hon. Gentleman was making exactly the same remarks as he was making when I went out the first time. It seems to me that the hon. Member's remarks have reached the point of tedious repetition.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) will bear that point in mind. There are the provisions of Standing Order No. 22.

Mr. Loughlin: With great deference to you, Mr. Speaker, if I have been guilty of tedious repetition while you have been in the Chair, I am willing to sit down immediately.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman made the threat a moment ago that he was going to say something again and again and again.

Mr. Loughlin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said "again and again and again". That is not a threat to repeat it time out of number. It is simply an expression which I thought that you understood.

Mr. Gorst: Get on with it.

Mr. Loughlin: I am happy to give way if the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) wishes to intervene.

Mr. Gorst: I thought the hon. Gentleman wanted to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) had to say.

Mr. Loughlin: I return to the point that I was on when interrupted by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells). I say that this Bill is designed to attack the youngsters. If we have a Bill of this kind, including Clause 5, applicable to the Isle of Wight, and then other areas take powers—

Mr. Woodnutt: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have listened to this particular sentence being repeated no fewer than six times. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to call the hon. Gentleman to order.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have sat here through the whole of my hon. Friend's speech and I do not share the view that has been put to you in a point of order that my hon. Friend has repeated himself. On the contrary, he has used a number of varying arguments against the Bill, and I hope that you will take my point of view into account as much as that put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. Speaker: In fact, I shall be very considerably guided by the view of Mr. Deputy Speaker, who also gave me her opinion about these matters. The House is a fairly tolerant place and the hon. Gentleman has had quite a long run. I


hope he will bring his remarks to a conclusion so that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) can speak.

Mr. Loughlin: If I had not been interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I would have finished 10 minutes ago. I was talking about the youngsters being decent and moral, and I had almost finished. All I want to say is that the Bill is designed against youngsters, and I do not believe one can have a Bill of this kind without interfering with the fundamental freedom and liberty of a large section of our community.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I will not waste the time of the House by repeating my Second Reading speech, which was on 19th March and is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1789–95. If the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) had read that speech, he would have had a better understanding of what the Bill is about. It is a complete nonsense to say that this Bill seeks to ban pop. He threw out a challenge "If it is not pop, what is it?" Of course it involves pop. This matter has arisen, as I explained on Second Reading, because we have had three pop festivals in the Isle of Wight, the last of which was attended by some 200,000 people. All this Bill sets out to do is to exercise some control. It seeks to lay down rules by which the promoters of such festivals will have to abide.
I was grateful for the intervention of one hon. Member opposite who said that this was aimed at the promoters, and not at the young. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has just talked about morals, long hair, sex and drugs. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) called us all "youth haters". Both hon. Gentlemen are talking absolute poppycock. The Bill has nothing to do with drugs. It has nothing to do with morals. It lays down rules whereby the people who promote these enormous festivals for private profit are made to provide the proper facilities for the young.
The Bill is designed for the young. It aims to see that they are protected from the kind of people who ran the Isle of Wight festival last year with inadequate facilities. It is to ensure that they get the right facilities.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Gentleman will recall that on Second Reading when I made that perhaps exaggerated remark about hatred of the youth, it was provoked by the tremendous chorus of approval of hon. Members opposite. Although the hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was not intended to kill pop festivals altogether, when I said that it would have that effect, great shouts of "Hear, hear" and "Good" came from the benches opposite.

Mr. Woodnutt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was provoked. I know that he was being interrupted. In any event, he referred to us as "haters of youth". In fact, in promoting the Bill the Isle of Wight County Council is aiming at protecting youth, as well as the local residents.
It is quite useless hon. Members talking about the Forest of Dean. Everything is laid on there, and it is a regular place where amenities are provided. However, when the events which we are discussing are promoted, a farm is taken over and there is no provision for lavatories, water supplies and so on. Something has to be done to make sure that the promoters spend some of the vast sums that they receive in ticket money—£3,£4 and£5 a ticket—on providing the right facilities.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite has said that these powers are unprecedented, and they asked why the Isle of Wight should have them. We are dealing with an unprecedented situation. It is a new development in our society when vast numbers of people live in the open for several days and nights on end. When I went to the pop festival last year and walked past the inadequate latrines, there was a river of effluent flowing right across the field, into which everyone had to walk. That is the sort of thing that the Bill is aimed to prevent.
I assure the House that the Bill is not to ban pop. It is unworthy of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West to say that it is. It is not to ban pop festivals. It is to give the local authority power to control them. That is why we have suggested that the fines should be so large, though they have been reduced by the Committee. At the moment, in the public health regulations there are various rules which the local authority can apply. However, the fines are a derisory£10 a day. A person who is seeking profit by


promoting pop will not worry about£10 fine if he does not provide the lavatories and other facilities required by the local authority.
I said that I did not intend to bore the House with a repetition of my Second Reading speech. However, I should point out that the support that the hon. Member for Barking and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved) have can be judged by the fact that on Second Reading, which they ran through until nearly 3 o'clock on a Friday morning, they were beaten by 63 votes to 2. Following that, a Committee of this House made up of two hon. Members from each side spent three sittings considering the Bill and were unanimous in their decision. In addition, several hon. Members on the Benches opposite have signed the unofficial whip which I sent round, and have promised me their support. Moreover, Lord Blyton, an ex-Labour Member, who is held in affection by hon. Members on both sides, has undertaken to steer the Bill through the other place if it is supported by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Driberg: He will be in charge of it.

Mr. Woodnutt: In my experience, this House has always been most sympathetic to the individual problems of individual constituencies and Members of Parliament. I hope that tonight it will not fail to send the Bill onwards to its Third Reading.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: We were extremely interested to learn that Lord Blyton, for whom we all have affection, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) said, is to steer the Bill through the other place, or as much of the other place as he can command.
There are different procedures in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is not "in charge" of the Bill here. Although he introduced it, he is not "piloting" it; nor, I take it, is he "steering" it. Lord Blyton is steering it through another place. It is possible that he may meet some opposition there, because a number of noble lords, and even gracious dukes, open their extensive grounds and houses

to the public and have even provided accommodation for pop festivals. Therefore, it would be interesting to listen to the debates on the Bill in another place.
The hon. Gentleman in his concluding speech, which was as he said it would be brisk and brief, and creditably so, spoke of a "river of effluent" which he saw pouring through the Isle of Wight at the last pop festival. It sounds a little like Mrs. Whitehouse on the B.B.C., and it is just about as exaggerated. If there had been a serious river of effluent, I am sure that the medical officer of health for the island would have taken a serious view of it. As we know, the medical officer of health said that the health risks had been greatly exaggerated. I am told that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight said on television that he had never yet agreed with the medical officer of health for the island on anything.

Mr. Woodnutt: I must put the hon. Gentleman right. The gentleman to whom he is referring is not the medical officer of health for the island; he is the medical officer of health for the rural district council.

Mr. Driberg: I am obliged for that correction, but I do not see that it affects the argument, because he is presumably a qualified doctor. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is also a qualified doctor. At any rate, a qualified doctor would not say that the health risks had been greatly exaggerated if, in his qualified opinion, they had not been.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, what is more important, the medical officer of health for the area in which the festival is held, who is charged with the duty of protecting public health, took this view. He is not just a general medical practitioner; he is a medical officer of health skilled in public health administration who took that view.

Mr. Driberg: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Until the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight corrected me, I had confused the two medical officers of health, but do I take it that there was no great public dispute between them?

Mr. Woodnutt: The medical officer of health for the rural district council said


what the hon. Gentleman has indicated, but most of the doctors on the Isle of Wight thoroughly disagree with him.

Mr. Driberg: Did they do so publicly?

Mr. Woodnutt: indicated assent.

Mr. Driberg: I will not pursue the point.

Mr. Gorst: It would be a great help, now that this confusion has arisen, if the hon. Gentleman could clarify one thing about the tenor of his argument. Is he saying that there was not sufficient pollution, effluent, rubbish, or whatever it is that 200,000 stampeding people create, to justify precautionary measures being taken as proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Driberg: I think that precautionary measures were taken last year. Otherwise there might have been some health risk. But we are assured by one medical officer of health that the health risk was greatly exaggerated—exaggerated by those who are, no doubt, using that as an argument against the festival. That is the main point.
There is then the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman and touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). I have no brief to speak for the promoters of the festival, but it appears to be a very wicked thing that they should be what is called "commercial". The evil of the profit motive crept into the hon. Member's speech. I am sure that the Isle of Wight and the hon. Member himself are not against all commercial interests and all exercise of the profit motive. I am sure they are not against the capitalist system and the commercial society in which we live.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: That point has been concerning several of my hon Friends and myself. When the hon. Member talked about the evil of the profit motive he might have referred to something that appeared in newspapers in his area, about something called Bern-bridge Harbour, in which, I understand, he has some interest himself.

Mr. Driberg: I shall not go into that question, because it is not strictly relevant to the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning it, but not for introducing it at this point. It is an important matter, but another matter.
As for being commercial, that is part of the society in which we live; it applies to every place of entertainment—to every theatre and cinema in the land. Let us hear no more humbug about the wickedness of promoters being commercial and seeking to make great profits. They do not seem to have been very clever profit makers, because they lost a lot of money last year. They were not so clever as are some hon. Members opposite in making their financial arrangements.
When the hon. Member says that the Bill is designed for the protection rather than the restriction of youth I must take issue with him. I shall not repeat my reason, because I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition. It is the reason I gave when I interrupted the hon. Member's speech. There was a tremendous clamour from his hon. Friends when I said that this might make it impossible to have another pop festival in the Isle of Wight. There was a great roar of "Hear, hear"—fairly late at night, of course.
One hon. Member had the impertinence and effrontery to talk about the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and myself. It is strictly out of order—and the hon. Member would have been reminded of that fact if he had pursued that line—to impute any dishonourable motive to hon. Members in this House. It is not a dishonourable motive to take care of one's constituency interests, and the hon. Member therefore was not imputing a dishonourable motive but he was imputing a very foolish motive in not realising that the difference between an urban area and a rural area is that in an urban area, with a few relatively small parks, there simply would not be room to accommodate a pop festival of 200,000 people.
It appears that in the Isle of Wight, which is a mainly rural area, there are many plots of land, fields, and so on, which have been considered for this year's festival—as I gather from the newspapers. I do not know which has been booked, if any has. Obviously, there is infinitely more room in a rural area to hold that sort of crowd. I like the amenities of our countryside as much as any hon. Member, but it is a matter of simple common sense that a country site can accommodate a pop festival,


whereas an over-populated urban site cannot.
As I said on Second Reading, our real motives are, primarily, concern for the right of assembly. This is one point at which I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), through whose comprehensive speech we all sat with great interest. He asked what possible crowd of more than 5,000 people could go to the Isle of Wight for this purpose. The danger seems to be to the whole right of assembly, not only for pop festivals. It could be a political assembly which was distasteful to the Isle of Wight County Council as at present constituted.
A few years ago, when the great marches from Aldermaston were in progress at Easter, lasting a good many days, in fine weather, many of the people

taking part would sleep out of doors, or sometimes in halls—

Mr. Gorst: Which politician could command an audience of 200,000?

Mr. Driberg: I doubt whether either the hon. Member or I could do that—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: He could on commercial radio.

Mr. Driberg: My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman could do so on commercial radio. I think that he is—

Mr. Woodnutt: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 43.

Division No. 366.]
AYES
[9.52 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Green, Alan
Monro, Hector


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper


Atkins, Humphrey
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Berry, Hn, Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mudd, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Boscawen, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom


Bray, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Percival, Ian


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pink, R. Bonner


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Miss Mary
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper, A. E.
James, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cordle, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Critchley, Julian
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Crouch, David
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Curran, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Kilfedder, James
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dean, Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Simeons, Charles


Evans, Fred
Leadbitter, Ted
Sinclair, Sir George


Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Spence, John


Fidler, Michael
Longden, Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Luce, R. N.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
MacArthur, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fortescue, Tim
McLaren, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sutcliffe, John


Garrett, W. E.
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Ginsburg, David
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Tilney, John


Cower, Raymond
Moate, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Molyneaux, James
van Straubenzee, W. R.




Waddington, David
Wiggin, Jerry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ward, Dame Irene
Wilkinson, John
Mr. Ray Mawby and


Weatherill, Bernard
Woof, Robert
Mr. Mark Woodnutt


Wells, John (Maidstone)
younger, Hn. George





NOES


Barnett, Joel
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hooson, Emlyn
Oswald, Thomas


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Varley, Eric G.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kerr, Russell
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Driberg, Tom
Lamond, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lawson, George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Loughlin, Charles



Golding, John
Meacher, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Leslie Huckfield and


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Question put accordingly and agreed to.


Bill considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour; and that the Motion relating to Local Employment may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Orders of the Day — CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the Chairman of Ways and Means to move the consideration of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Bill, I wish to inform the House that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), That the Bill be considered upon this day six months.

10.3 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
This Bill is of particular interest for a number of reasons. First, it is an attempt to legislate about a very topical problem, that of the environment. The Report of the Countryside Commission entitled "Planning the Coastline", published as recently as last November, referred specifically to Chichester Harbour as the first regional park.
The proposals in the Bill extend beyond the scope which general legislation has hitherto involved, and it is, therefore, a project of a somewhat unique character, creating a local conservancy authority with a somewhat unique constitution in that it would comprise representatives of two county councils between whose areas the main Chichester Harbour has hitherto been divided.
The Bill is promoted jointly by these two councils—namely, West Sussex and Hampshire County Councils—and would confer on the new authority powers designed to remove anomalies which have arisen from the divided administration of what is essentially one harbour and amenity area.
The Bill is a direct attempt to further the interests of naturalists, sports councils, amateur and professional fishing interests and others, including particularly and specifically the interests of yachtsmen and sailing enthusiasts. What could be more topical—with a Prime Minister who adds yachting laurels each weekend to the political ones he gains through the week on the sea-green benches of this House?
The history of the Bill's development is rather a long one and I will not bore the House with its details at this time of night. Suffice it to say that there have been very protracted negotiations. For many years there has been a pressing need to unify the administration of what have been two differently administered harbours and to deal with the problem of conservation in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area, which has been constituted an area of outstanding beauty.
The Bill therefore has been promoted jointly by the two county councils, and the proposals have been worked out with the support of both the previous harbour authorities, which have had responsibility for the administration of the harbours, and the district councils bordering the harbour; that is to say, the Urban District Council of Havant and Waterloo, the Rural District Council of Chichester and Chichester City Council. Also party to the negotiations has been the Chichester Harbour Federation, which is representative of the users of the harbour. This federation represents both sailing and commercial interests. It includes among its membership some 16 clubs, all recognised by the Royal Yachting Association—and 10,000 individual members.
The Bill has also been welcomed by the Nature Conservancy and by the Countryside Commission which, in its recent report, recommended that these regional parks should be established in appropriate areas, and specifically recommended that Chichester Harbour should be selected as the first area for the creation of such an authority.
The House will understand that a very wide spectrum of users and different interests is involved, not only in, on and under the water but also on the shoreline and in the immediately surrounding


countryside. As an indication of the large number of interests involved and the attempts made in the Bill to cater for all of them, I propose to read out the composition of the proposed conservancy.
There would be 14 members, of which four each would be found by the county councils, one by the Council of the City of Chichester, two by the Urban District Council of Havant and Waterloo, one by Chichester R.D.C., and two by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Advisory Committee, which is the next point I come to.
There would be an advisory committee constituted by the Bill to advise and assist and to give all the help it could to this new Conservancy. This committee will be of not fewer than 14 and not more than 16 members, again with a very wide spectrum of interests: the Royal Yachting Association, of which I shall speak more in a moment, will nominate one member; the Chichester Harbour Federation, four members; the Sussex Sea Fisheries District Committee, one member; the Nature Conservancy, one member; the Countryside Commission, one member; the Greater London and South-East Sports Council, one member—this is an indication that people come from far and wide to enjoy themselves in this area at weekends and so on; the Chichester District Association of Parish Councils is not left out and gets one member; the Ship and Boat Builders National Federation, one member; amateur fishing interests, one member; naturalist interests one member; wild-fowlers, one member; and other persons interested in the harbour or the amenity area, if the conservancy think fit, another two members; totalling up to 16 members.
The Bill's general concept was the subject of consideration at public inquiries as long ago as 1966, and again in 1968, into the revision of the Harbour Orders which were applied for by each of the existing harbour authorities, and it was approved at that time by the Minister as a desirable ultimate aim to achieve one unitary authority for the area.
In addition, in 1968, the two county councils commisisoned a detailed report which was called the Chichester Harbour Study and was produced by the joint planning advisers of those two county

councils. This admirable report confirmed the landscape value and the recreational potentialities of the amenity area bordering on the combined harbour, as well as the opportunities for the improvement of the recreational value of the harbour itself. The conclusion of this admirable and detailed report, as stated on page 61, is:
The main fact which has emerged from this Study is that all the various users of the harbour are inter-related and that development on the water is bound up with development on the land.
At the next stage a steering committee composed of representatives of all the local authorities, the Chichester Harbour Federation as representing yachting interests, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy was established in November, 1969. This committee, which has taken a great deal of advice from outside interests, has been consulted fully in the detailed preparation of the Bill.
Since the Bill has been published petitions have been lodged against it by three bodies. Two petitions have been withdrawn. The only petition which is still standing is that on behalf of the Royal Yachting Association.
I must declare an interest, although not a financial one, because I have been a member of the Royal Yachting Association for many years. In fact, a little earlier I stumbled and referred to the "Yacht Racing Association" which is what it used to be called from 1875 when it was originally created—a little before my time.
I joined the Starcross Sailing Club in Devonshire, and have a certificate to this effect, when I was one week old. So whoever else might denigrate or deny the yachting interests in a discussion of these matters, that man would certainly not be myself!
The substance of the R.Y.A.'s petition is that as yachting and sailing activities form by far the greater part of the use of this combined harbour—there were estimated to be over 6,500 small boats in Emsworth and Chichester alone two years ago; the number has certainly not climinished—the R.Y.A. should have direct representation on the Conservancy Board itself rather than on the Advisory Committee.
Although I am presenting the Bill, I have a great deal of sympathy with this point of view. It is true that sailing interests predominate. Chichester Harbour is a unique stretch of sheltered water, perhaps better for dinghy racing than any other centre in the United Kingdom. It is unquestionably true also that the sources of revenue available to the new Conservancy will arise largely from mooring charges and other fees derived from boat owners.
The R.Y.A. makes the point that it has a personal membership exceeding 33,000, and also that over 1,500 affiliated clubs and sailing clubs are grouped under the overlordship, so to speak, of the R.Y.A.
I can certainly vouch for the fact that the R.Y.A. is recognised as being the national authority for all sailing and boating matters—not only sailing, but motorboats as well, and all sizes and types of boat. The R.Y.A. is recognised as being a national authority, and it has a tremendous record, particularly in recent years, as an energetic and very responsible authority. Its position is not challenged by any other authority. It is accepted by all sailing and boating enthusiasts at all levels from 12 metres down to the smallest little pram dinghy that anybody could possibly be afloat in.
The arguments for and against direct representation on this new Conservancy by the R.Y.A. could occupy us all night. I do not want to indulge in that exercise. We must face the fact that the petition of the R.Y.A. was very fully presented by parliamentary counsel in Committee on 5th and 6th April. The Committee's decision was against such direct representation by the R.Y.A. It seems a fairly narrow point. I can see what the R.Y.A. is driving at. I was not on the Committee but I have read all of its proceedings and I am bound to say that I wish I had been on the Committee because I would have had a lot of sympathy with the R.Y.A.
But tonight we must face the constitutional position that the petition was rejected by the Committee. The R.Y.A. is not opposed to the principle of the Bill. Paragraph 1 of the petition specifically states that the R.Y.A. welcomes the general principle of the Bill for the unification of this vast harbour complex,

almost totally concerned with yachting. The R.Y.A. likes the Bill, wants the Bill, and has only this one narrow objection.
My judgment, which is why I agreed to put forward the Bill on behalf of its promoters, is that yachting interests as a whole would be better served by accepting the Bill as it stands and putting the new arrangements into effect as soon as possible than by reopening the whole question of the composition of the new Conservancy. To do the latter might be to defer for several years, or even indefinitely, the setting up of the new authority.
There is a delicately balanced house of cards built up by the authorities concerned, and I fear that the insistence of the R.Y.A. on moving one crucial card might bring the whole edifice tumbling down. Queen Victoria's Lord Salisbury said that "the time comes when any decision, even the wrong decision, is better than no decision." I hope that the R.Y.A. will philosophically remember this dictum even if it cannot agree with it.
The remainder of this long and complex Bill is not substantially opposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) has certain reservations. It is said that a miniature county council is being set up, remote from some of the people most affected by it. We are suffering from the inevitable consequences of the increased mobility of present-day sportsmen. They come with motor car and trailer, be it boat trailer or caravan, converging on this area of outstanding natural beauty, and it is difficult to produce any authority which can directly represent such a fluid population.
The new Conservancy has the power to call for limited support from the county rate fund and to levy charges of all kinds throughout the area. There are appeal provisions against the charges, and checks and balances of all kinds. The accounts of the Conservancy will be published. We cannot have an authority set up to regulate as complex and crowded a recreational area as this without giving it the essential teeth with which to do its job.
It is not specifically provided in the Bill that the Conservancy's meetings will be held in public, but I have been assured


by the promoters that if this were an objection and it was not specifically covered they would be happy to support an Amendment in another place to cover the intention that the meetings should be held in public.
The proposed Conservancy represents an experiment well worth making. It is a valuable experiment which may be very much the pattern of the future. I recommend the Bill to the House.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am prompted to intervene very briefly for a special reason. Some time ago I was deputed by this honourable House to preside over the deliberations of the Committee on the Bill. I have no wish to detain the House by giving a detailed recital of the merits of the points in dispute, but, having heard all the arguments skilfully deployed by eminent parliamentary counsel on behalf of the petitioners, I am as familiar with the merits of the Bill as any hon. Member could hope to be.
Having just sat through and taken part in another debate on a Private Bill, my simple plea is that the House should consider it a duty, not necessarily to agree with everything which the Committee entrusted with special powers did, but to accept that the hon. Members over whom I had the honour to preside and myself diligently and conscientiously considered all the arguments presented to us by the parliamentary counsel in charge of the petitioners' case and the promoters' case. As long as we have this kind of procedure in the House—the facility for private authorities, be they county councils or other bodies, to provide finance to promote a Bill which has a desirable objective, as this Bill undoubtedly has—we should at least give them a fair crack of the whip and consider the merits of what they propose, regardless of where the Bill comes from in terms of party politics.
Although there was rooted opposition from the Royal Yachting Association, I was fortified by the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), with his nautical experience and personal contact with the yachting fraterniy. Throughout our debates in one of the Committee

Rooms upstairs, which were freely and fairly deployed on many occasions, there was a rooted objection that Chichester Harbour, which is an amenity district of great natural beauty, should be developed under the terms of the Bill as a minor national park, fusing together and giving co-ordination to the amenity and recreational interests of the harbour, the ecological preservation of the wild life and natural life which abounds in the sea and on the land in that area, and the fishing interests and those who earn their living on the quayside at Chichester, Waterloo and Langstone.
All those interests have been fully consulted. I am advised that the consultations about the merits of this very enlightened proposal have been going since about 1966. The two county councils which are the prime movers in this matter—the West Sussex County Council and the Hampshire County Council, whose county boundary runs through the middle of the area we are discussing in which the Conservancy is to operate—went to infinite trouble to get the local authority of Chichester and the urban district which adjoins it to ensure that all the interests were properly consulted. Two of the petitioners withdrew their petition before the Committee.
We were then faced with this rather unfortunate sticking point, that the yachting interests said, "We ought to be given a special place on the authority itself", that is, the governing board to be entrusted with the administration of this undertaking. In its wisdom, the Committee rejected this. It rejected it after full consideration, regardless of any party issue. I say that because, as hon. Members know, these Committees are composed of hon. Members representing both sides of the House. The yachting interests thought—this was the basis of their case—that because they provided so many of those who visit the harbour and enjoy its amenities and sail in its waters and in the waters of the estuaries of the rivers, and because they were producing such a large amount of the revenue which comes from levies by the harbour authority, they were entitled to special representation. In fact, representation of all the yachting interests has been amply provided for in the advisory committee which is being set up and which has 14 members. There is no need for me to


weary the House with the details of whom they represent.
What this community desires is to merge together the many interests and functions which can affect the whole life of that area, the amenity and cultural welfare of the area, and to preserve what is well worth preserving, and could be destroyed by clumsy commercial development. The opposition is based upon the fact that those who supply a lot of the revenue wish to have special representation.
I am speaking now from memory without reference to a lot of notes, but I understand that a great many of the people—90 per cent. of them—who go to the harbour every weekend or at such other times as they wish to sail their craft on the waters of this inland sea are commuters; they are not local ratepayers, nor members of the local community, but people who because of motor cars and other means of easy traction can go there from all the surrounding areas, and from London—from very far afield, indeed. That is all right; we have no objection to that; and, no doubt, we should do the same thing if we lived in that delectable part of the country. I am speaking as a Lancastrian, as a northern man—who has still some beautiful country left in his part of the world and who is far removed from the seat of this dispute which has arisen.
I would simply say this. If I were buying goods made by I.C.I. or Lever Brothers, and were buying them at the market price, I would not demand a seat on the board of I.C.I. or of Lever Brothers merely because I bought their products. I would be content to pay the commercial price for their goods or services, as the case might be. Here we have the rather peculiar argument, which I think it difficult to sustain in logic or equity, "Because we are a numerous community and go to those waters and take part in the activities there and provide a lot of the revenue, we must be specially represented."
In reply to that, the Committee on the Bill came to the view that the two county councils have financial commitments to meet any deficit, if there were to be one, in the financing of the Conservancy. We hope, of course, that there

will not be any deficit, but in the formative stages the county councils would be legally obliged under the terms of the Bill to provide compensating revenue if there were to be a deficit, and we, as a Committee, thought that it would be constitutionally wrong to give to outside, individual people enjoying the services of the district a voice on the governing board directly, so long as they are given adequate consultation through the advisory committee, on which they will be strongly represented.
Those who have investigated these matters, as I have with my three colleagues, are entitled to ask for the support of the House in endorsing what we have done and letting the Bill proceed on its normal course. There is sometimes prejudice in these matters. Private Bills which are opposed are sometimes debated by very few hon. Members, but when the Division bell rings hon. Members flock into the Lobbies on party lines, regardless of the merits of the Bill. Whilst I am a party politician, like any other, I would never be so narrow as to cast a blind vote on an issue concerned with the preservation and improvement of a special part of our country. The Bill is highly desirable, it is enlightened and liberal-minded, it has been soundly constructed and all interests have been consulted. If by some blind vote the House were ill-advised enough to reject the Bill, it would take many years to get it on its feet again. I commend the Bill to the House with the utmost confidence.

10.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): This Bill is being promoted jointly by the West Sussex and Hampshire County Councils, and its purpose is to unify the ownership and management of the two harbours, Chichester and Emsworth, which are now run by Chichester Corporation and Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council. It is a Private Bill, and the Government's attitude towards it is one of strict, though benevolent, neutrality.
The Bill touches on several aspects of the work of the Department of the Environment. There is, for example, the harbour. A general responsibility for harbour matters falls to my right hon. Friend, but the Bill for all that is essentially a local harbour measure to meet a


local need, and my Department does not have, and would not wish to have, any special locus. We are, however, broadly content with the Bill as it stands and would not wish to dissent from anything that it says about the harbour.
Secondly, in so far as the Bill touches on the management of the countryside, once again the Department of the Environment has an interest. It is very gratifying that the lovely countryside bordering on these waters should, as the Bill proposes, be taken under the wing of a body such as the Harbour Conservancy. I feel sure the House will agree that this is an appropriate response to the need to protect this beautiful amenity area and to manage it in the best interests both of the flora and fauna and of the many people keenly interested in rural pursuits who will take their enjoyment there.
Thirdly, my Department has an interest in the sporting and recreational aspects that are touched upon in the Bill. I invariably welcome any prospect of sensible improved provision being made for sport and recreation, and in particular in this area for water sports. We are in the presence of a recreational explosion. More and more people with more leisure and more mobility are pressing to the shores and the countryside seeking their pleasure. In particular, there is an enormous upsurge in water sports of all kinds. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has here set a splendid example. But he is not alone. I understand that nearly 1½million people regularly turn to water sports, to sailing. There are, of course, anglers as well, and fishing is covered in some of the provisions of the Bill. On that count also I think I can rightly say that my right hon. Friend's approach is one of benevolent neutrality.
As I understand it, the yachting interests do not oppose the Measure in principle. It would not be right for me to take up a view one way or another on the question of the numbers and representation of those yachting interests on either the Conservancy or the Advisory Committee. As I understand the situation, the Committee of the House was in favour of having a Conservancy Board composed of 12 local authority members and two Advisory Committee members as proposed in the Bill itself. I would

have thought there would be a general measure of contentment with that.
If, on the other hand, it should be the wish of the House that the yachting interests should have a stronger say one way or another in the affairs of the Board, then so far as my Department is concerned my right hon. Friend would not wish to dispute this point. From the Government's point of view we see the advantages of this Bill. We adopt a stance of benevolent neutrality.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The House has had the interesting prospect of seeing in this debate benevolent neutrality displayed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, benevolent paternalism from the hon. Member who chaired the Private Bill Committee, and benevolent criticism from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). Within those three forms of benevolence, it would be difficult for me to make my points without exposing myself to a charge of arrogance.
Clearly, what has been said about the functions and operations of Private Bill Committees is justified and hon. Members who sit on such Committees must be said to have considered this Bill and all other Bills that come before such Committees with care and patience. I do not think anybody would dispute that those hon. Members did so on this occasion.
My point of view is not based on objection to the general objectives or principles of the Bill. I have made it clear that I do not propose to divide the House on this issue. I have, however, a number of serious reservations on the Bill and I would be failing in my duty if I did not express them, particularly in view of the many representations made to me by constituents and, of course, because this whole area falls virtually in the heart of my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway). The two of us may be said to have a much closer interest in everything the Bill is proposing than might be true of many other right hon. and hon. Members.
My first objection, and it is a real one, is to the manner in which the Bill has been handled. This possibly is as much


a criticism of Private Bill procedure as of the way in which this particular Bill has been handled.
My second criticism is perhaps more fundamental, because it applies to the mechanism or mode of operation which will be employed by the Bill in the operation of the Conservancy Board. In principle we should never seek to end up, in this day and age, with anything that exposes us to the criticism of establishing a remote form of government—a form of government, whether central, local or specialist, as in this case, which can be seriously criticised as being unresponsive to the needs of those whom the particular administration affects.
Thirdly, I am critical of the powers of the Conservancy. Those powers, though constrained, seem to me to be of a considerable and wide extent. Page 19 of the Bill sets out these powers in detail, and it would be of interest if I were to summarise them. They include the provision, erection and maintenance of all such accommodation, houses, buildings, structures, erections, vehicles, plant, machinery etc., the holding of exhibitions, shows, regattas, competitions and contests, the provision of hostels and caravan sites, the provision of accommodation for, and the provision of meals and freshments, the provision, improvement or maintenance of roads and parking places, the dissemination of all forms of publicity and the provision of information centres, and the levying of charges for admission to, or the use of, any of the facilities.
Then, over the page, there comes a provision which has been criticised in representations made to me:
The Conservancy may for the purpose of or in connection with any of their functions acquire any land within the harbour or the amenity area by agreement, whether by way of purchase, exchage, lease or otherwise.
The following subsection reads:
The Conservancy, by means of an order made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State may be authorised to purchase compulsorily any such land as aforesaid.
These are very considerable powers.
When I say that we are, by this Bill, creating a miniature county council, I accept what the Clerk of the West Sussex County Council said to me in a letter

which I received this morning, which is to the effect that most of these powers are those of existing harbour boards or are subject to ratification or transfer by existing county councils. None the less, an authority of this kind is in a different relationship to county councils from the private individual. Theoretically, these powers may be circumscribed in this way. But when an authority is given the kinds of powers that are proposed in this Bill, the argument that we are establishing a minature county council can be maintained in substance.
I turn to the manner in which the Bill has been handled. In essence, many representations were invited, and many may have been considered. During the long procedure of discussion, I have no doubt that that was the case. But it has been made clear to me in the past few weeks that numerous smaller organisations, unable to afford the very considerable costs of petitioning the Private Bill Committee which considered the Bill, have not had their case fully considered. We may think that that is not the case. The Committee may think that it is not the case. But certainly the smaller organisations believe it to be the case.
To confirm it, I quote from a number of the representations which have been made to me. I begin with the Emsworth Business Association, which said in a recent letter:
There has been insufficient notification, public inquiry and public participation in the formulation of the Bill…its progress has been attended by undue haste.
The Emsworth Harbour Fishermen's Federation has made the following point to me:
We encase a copy of our letter to you of 31st January submitting a list of suggested amendments. We notice with regret that not one of these has been met and would be grateful if you would take this up. We know you will appreciate the injustice of the ratepayer's position. His money is used to promote this sort of legislation, but neither individual ratepayers nor their associations have the immense sums of money required to back objections.
These are serious points.
The next one is particularly interesting. It is contained in what might be described as a public document. In the Report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and


Food on the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Bill, which is a document laid before the Committee, this occurs:
Nevertheless, the general functions of the Conservancy set out in this clause do not include any reference to fishing interests.
In this part of the country, fishing interests are of a substantially lower order of magnitude or significance than any other. No one disputes that yachting is probably the predominant interest. But fishing interests are important. Men's livelihoods depend on them. It is of the utmost importance, when men's livelihoods are involved, that they should not end up feeling that their interests have not been considered adequately, even with a private Bill procedure of this kind.

Mr. J. T. Price: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, in setting up an Advisory Committee of not less than 14 and not more than 16 members, specific provision is made that the Sussex Sea Fisheries District Committee shall be represented, after consultation with the Emsworth Harbour Fishermen's Federation. The fishing interest are represented. Furthermore, it is proposed that the Advisory Committee shall elect two members to the Conservancy itself. There is direct provision for them.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. The point is that, although this form of representation of fishing interests has been made, the Advisory Committee, knowing this, is still dissatisfied. Possibly the reason for dissatisfaction, to which I shall come later, is the relationship between the committee and the Conservancy Board itself.

Mr. Harold Gurden: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the two previous letters which he read were laid before the Committee and taken into consideration, even though they were not represented by counsel?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is probably in a better position to answer. My impression is that these letters were not laid before the Committee. This again comes back to the Private Bill procedure.
I should now like to refer to a letter from the Emsworth Sea Angling Club in which it says:
We accept that unification of control of Chichester Harbour has much to recommend it,

but feel that many objectionable features have caused so much resentment over the whole area that, to get the Bill off to a good start and in a co-operative atmosphere, it should be completely redrafted on more democratic lines.
This again may be exaggerated criticism, but it seems important that it is being made at this stage.
I come to yet another totally different kind of interest, the Emsworth Business Association, representing 60 businesses and, therefore, a large proportion of the businesses in a relatively small coastal town. The association writes:
This Bill appears to erode the basic principles of democracy, in that it will transfer vast powers which are at present vested in several local authorities and controlled by our elected representatives, and place these powers in the hands of a far more remote body, which will be almost inaccessible to the local ratepayer.
Yachtsmen are very much in the news. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester, who has certainly made some interesting observations on this point, speaks with considerable experience. The Royal Yachting Association certainly petitioned. It was one of the last surviving petitions which were aired and not withdrawn. However, it seems that the essence of the Royal Yachting Association's objection to the Bill comes down to the composition of the governing bodies. My hon. and gallant Friend has already given this information to the House. There is a condominium, in a sense, with the Conservancy Board consisting of 14 members exercising the real power and an Advisory Committee consisting of 14 to 16 members exercising what is I suppose a contradiction in terms, namely, advisory power.
Concerning the mechanism, it seems, from my limited experience, that, generally speaking, advisory committees are ineffective bodies. Not only in this specific area of harbour authorities do they seem to have no power except that of talking and writing letters, but more generally in all kinds of organisations they appear mainly as a sop to Cerberus. I sit on one known as the Council of Europe. It has a tremendous name, but it is nothing more than an advisory committee to Governments which take no notice whatever of what is said.
I turn to the Conservancy Board. The nomination principle by local authorities


is very widely opposed in all the representations which have been made to me. This is to be met by including a Clause which provides that nominees should be confined to elected councillors. Many people have pressed for this, but I understand that the promoters have so far been unwilling to give anything more than assurances that naturally a substantial number of the elected members of the two counties will be nominated. This does not meet the criticism which has been made.

Mr. J. T. Price: I think that we had better get the record straight. Since the question of democracy has been brought into the matter, may I point out that the members of the Conservancy Board are to consist of four members of the West Sussex County Council, four elected members of the Hampshire County Council, one elected member of the Chichester City Council, two elected members of the Urban District Council of Havant and Waterloo, which I think includes Emsworth, and one from the Chichester Rural District Council, in addition to which two members are to be nominated to the Conservancy Board itself from the Advisory Committee, on which the Royal Yachting Association will no doubt be represented. They have a channel of representation by the elected people in their respective county councils, urban district councils and city councils to extra seats on the Conservancy Board, through the agency of the Advisory Committee. That is the balanced view that the Committee took.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member has probably misinterpreted me. I am not disputing his figures, but there has been considerable criticism about the fact that the county councils retain the power to nominate their representatives and that those representatives will not necessarily be—and according to the Bill do not have to be—elected councillors to counties.
I do not altogether share this criticism, but many of those who have made representations are critical on that point, because they object to the principle of nomination. They feel that this places considerable power in the hands of county councils and keeps the Conservancy Board one stage further from the

reach of those elected by the local electors—the citizens.
The Royal Yachting Association has a very strong case, if only on the old—if not old-fashioned—principle of "No taxation without representation". Looking at the area comprised within the authority of the proposed Conservancy Board, it would not be difficult to make out a case that probably nine-tenths of the revenue of that authority, directly or indirectly, will be derived from the yachting interests. One can also make the case that the harbour of Chichester is unlike any other harbour, in that yachting is uniquely important, and that although other interests are rightly and properly represented in our discussions—wild life conservation, and recreation—in terms of revenue produced for those who have to govern this body they are relatively insignificant.
The promoters' arguments are mainly that because there is a precepting power they must have not merely a majority but a substantial majority on the Conservancy Board. I fail to follow the logic of that argument. It seems to me that what is wrapped up in this elaborate term "precepting power" is that the Board has a delegated right to spend a stated sum of money between£20,000 and£30,000. It may spend up to that amount without going to anybody, or seeking any authority. Therefore, it is in a sense a budget provided by county councils in the first place, grants by the central Government—relatively minor, I understand—in the second place, and an unstated, unquantified and unlimited source of revenue from those who use the harbour in any sense whatsoever.
I do not see the logic of the argument that because there is a budget from the county councils, the county councils and the other local authorities between them must have an overwhelming majority on the Conservancy Board.
That brings me to the next point. The argument put forward in favour of not disturbing the situation is that there has been such a delicate balance, and that this has been so difficult to achieve, that we dare not alter it or ask anyone to upset it, because once it is upset we shall never be able to recover the situation. I do not altogether accept that.
Then there is the argument that the local yachtsmen are taking a different


view from that of the Royal Yachting Association. The Chichester Harbour Federation has settled for four seats on the Advisory Committee, and therefore the association, representing the national yachting interests, has no right to put forward a different point of view. This again is a difficult argument. It seems appropriate that the National Yachting Institution should have its point of view represented.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: A few moments ago my hon. Friend said that this Conservancy would have apparently unlimited powers to charge the yachting interests for the conservation provided to them. He is no doubt aware that, under Section 31 of the Harbours Act, 1964, there would be a right of objection to the National Ports Council about any harbour charges.

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely accept that, but the National Ports Council is also an advisory body with no real powers. When I took a case from Langstone Harbour on appeal to the council, all that happened was that there was a series of polite and very interesting letters, but no material result, so far as my recollection goes. The council doubtless performs valuable work in other spheres but it is totally unsuited to appraise an appeal from an area such as Chichester.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said that payment of harbour dues did not bring entitlement to privileged treatment. He said that buying soap from Unilever's did not entitle him to sit on the Unilever board. I accept that, but there there is a very wide range of choice. A young man with a dinghy in Chichester may be able to move it five or 10 miles or further, but this will be a considerable expense to him. A man who is keeping a small cruising boat has a much more limited opportunity, and someone who has waited 10 years for a large mooring in Chichester has no opportunity at all, and is much more in the grasp of the authorities.
I feel obliged to put some specific proposals before the House largely in the hope that, out of all this, the promoters will, in reviewing the next stage, which takes place in another place, see whether they can possibly meet the general range of criticism. I am arguing for a new balance between local authority interests

and user interests. This is a matter of judgment and discretion and there can be many views about where the fulcrum of this balance should lie. My suggestion is only one possible version which may have weaknesses of its own, but it should be considered so that the promoters know exactly what is in my mind.
I suggest that the proposed Conservancy Board should consist of eight authority nominees, comprising two from West Sussex, two from Hampshire County Council two from Havant and Waterloo, and one each from Chichester City and Chichester Rural District, the last two becoming two from one body when those two authorities are merged into one under the local government reorganisation.
This opens the scope for user representation, the maximum being six, still leaving the local authority nominees with a significant and workable majority. The user interests should comprise two from the Royal Yachting Association representatives on the advisory committee, one from the Ship and Boat Builders' Federation, one from the Sussex Sea Fisheries and Emsworth Harbour Fishermen's Association and two from other interests.
This group of six would be a significant counter-weight to the local authority users and would certainly give scope, in the two unnamed representatives, for moving the representation of common interests in Chichester Harbour to giving those who are likely to be there, and who are certainly economically, recreationally and socially of the greatest present significance, some direct say in what the Board is proposing to do.

Mr. J. T. Price: I should like the hon. Member's proposition to be clearly understood. He is proposing, is he not, that six members should be added to the Conservancy, which is the central controlling body, and that they should not be elected members? He has been arguing to the House this is an undemocratic procedure. Is he suggesting that six people shall be appointed to a Conservancy which, in practice, would have the power to levy a rate on ratepayers living in the area; that six people who may not live in the area, who may be commuters from other parts of the country, should be invested with power to levy a rate payable by the county authorities and


by those who subscribe to their funds? This is an important constitutional matter.

Mr. Lloyd: I am not suggesting that, because the power to levy a rate, to the extent that a majority decision would be involved, would still be vested in the eight who would be a majority on the board. My suggestion concerning the number of places on the board is not that six be added, but that local authorities should give up a certain number and instead of there being merely two nominees from the advisory board, there should be six nominees from the advisory board. That is the essence of my proposal.
This would result in a number of consequential changes to the advisory committee. There should be two—not one—Royal Yachting Association representatives on the advisory committee and three—not four—Chichester Harbour Federation representatives on the Advisory Committee.
To sum up, I should like the promoters, if it is possible at this stage, before they present the Bill in another place, to reconsider the cases made by the smaller interests which have been unable to afford to present petitions before the Private Bill Committee. I should certainly be prepared to let them have all the documents which have been sent to me. If it were possible for them to receive representations directly, even at this late stage, I am sure that the interests of democracy would be served.
Secondly, I admit that it is difficult and that the existing solution is the result of a wide attempt at compromise, but, nevertheless, I should like the promoters of the Bill to reconsider the composition of the boards. I should like them to reconsider the question of elected versus nominated members of their own group because, although I do not believe this to be vital, it is believed to be vital by many people who have written to me. It comes back to the question of no taxation without representation. If that seems to be rather too large a principle to apply to a very small organisation, perhaps we can call it no charging without some degree of representation.
The promoters will have an opportunity to put forward Amendments in another

place. I very much hope that they will do so. I think that Amendments are required. They are not voluminous, but they are important and significant.
I have one other query, and I would willingly give away to the hon. Member for Westhoughton if he could answer it. It seems to me extraordinarily strange that in a Bill which is being put before the House to unify two harbour authorities, in a geographical area where there are already three harbour authorities, where, it seems to me, nothing is not in common between those three—they are all homogeneous—in the sense that there is a major yachting interest, there is a major wild life interest and the character of the harbours is the same, Langstone Harbour Board has not been included in the proposed Chichester Harbour Conservancy. All the logic which one commands seems to suggest that it should have been included.
I wonder whether we are likely to find ourselves, in five or six years' time, presented with yet another Private Bill when someone wakes up to the fact that the situation demands even wider unification of the authority throughout the new Chichester Harbour Conservancy area and the existing Langstone Harbour Conservancy area. If the hon. Member for Westhoughton knows the answer, I will gladly give way to him.

Mr. J. T. Price: As a matter of courtesy I will try to respond, although I can give no authoritative answer to that question. Having been presented with very extensive maps of the whole area and shown where the boundary lines operate, the red and green lines—I cannot describe this in the abstract without the maps before me—some of the coastal areas surrounding the harbour, certain peripheral area on the waterfront, on private land, are still outside the boundaries of the Conservancy. From my knowledge and what I have experienced in debate on these matters, I can only assume that many boundaries have been drawn as a result of long compromise and concessions made to various interests who had objections to particular sections originally mapped. This is a balance between different interests who have represented very liberal and generous compromises on one point or another. I would not venture beyond that.

Mr. Lloyd: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting information. It confirms my suspicion that we have here a situation in which the basic, natural administrative and other requirements of the area are not applied to the whole area, as they should be, right to the eastern end of Portsmouth—at the other end obviously very different circumstances apply. The whole of the harbour is one from the practical point of view. However, this may stimulate those responsible for this question to think again if and when the matter again comes before the House.
I am obliged to the House for the patience with which it has listened to me discussing a somewhat long but, I hope, an important interest.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bray: My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) has made many points, the majority of which were considered in depth by the Committee. My hon and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) gave an excellent resuméof the background leading to the Bill. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), as Chairman of the Select Committee, gave the impartial resume of the unanimous findings of the Committee.
For the sake of good order, I suggest that we look at the following points. First and foremost, initially there were three objections to the Bill: one by the Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council, one by the Road Transport Association, and the third by the Royal Yachting Association. After discussion and negotiation with the promoters of the Bill, the first two objections were withdrawn. It was then resolved that the Committee appointed by the House should consider the objection raised by the Royal Yachting Association. No other objections whatsoever were raised before the Committee, from which it is fair to assume that the other objectors, by letter or other means, were reasonably satisfied with the assurance they had been given by their immediate local authorities.
In this debate—perhaps I was at fault in Committee—I should declare an interest. For many years I have been a yachtsman. As a result, I know the

views, habits and thoughts leading to decisions and activities among the yachting fraternity. I took these considerations into my thoughts and ultimate decision upon the Bill. For that reason I support the Bill, with its Amendments, as approved by the Committee.
The Committee had looked at the fact that we had two small harbours, Chichester and Emsworth. Both were, perhaps, becoming overcrowded; both had scope for improvement; both needed a degree of regulation—much as I dislike the word—to ensure that, with the full use of the environment, they could give of their best not only to the boating fraternity but also to all those who wished to use the area to the full for pleasure and recreational purposes. I see no objection to that. The points made by the wild life and other organisations were catered for in the advisory committee.
Then there is the financial aspect. There is hardly one active member of the Royal Yachting Association who lives in the immediate vicinity or in what can be termed the catchment area of the Bill—nor, for that matter, within a radius of 30 miles north, east or west. It would be difficult for them to live to the south unless they were mermaids. In other words, they are not ratepayers. Nor are they responsible for spending the county rate, or even a proportion of it, on this Conservancy Board. They therefore have no financial discipline thrust upon them.
The two promoting authorities—the West Sussex and the Hampshire County Councils—have been wise in their assessment of the constitutions of the Board and of the advisory committee.
It is easy for people to say that they like messing about in boats and that they spend a lot of money on their boats. However, is the money spent within the district? Does it involve the authority's rate account or revenue account in a profit or a loss? This point was debated in extenso in Committee. It was stated categorically that the rating interests would not show a profit in other words, the local authorities through the rates would subsidise the activities of yachtng authorities. I therefore think that the constitution of the main governing body and that of the Advisory Committee is reasonable.
All these points were considered at great length by the Committee. It was the


Committee's unanimous decision that the Royal Yachting Association had failed to make its case. Others Amendments which had been discussed between the promoters, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were subsequently considered. It was the Committee's unanimous decision that the Bill, as amended, be recommended to the House.
Since the Motion objecting to the Bill appeared on the Order Paper I have studied the Bill and the Committee's proceedings very carefully and I can see no reason for retracting my decision to give wholehearted support to the Bill as amended.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: As a member of the Committee I wish to comment on a number of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). As regards the point raised about the fisheries interests by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at the end of Clause 21(2) the phrase
and of avoiding interference with fisheries
was written in expressly to safeguard the Conservancy's powers in respect of fisheries.
The matter of the non-elected councillor or somebody nominated by the local authorities was discussed in Committee and we had the precedent of the Lea Valley Regional Park Act, 1967, where it was clearly stated that it was desirable that when the local authority felt it had a paucity of persons suitable to serve on this rather specialised Conservancy, it should have the right to nominate someone better suited. It was for this reason that we accepted this precedent as proper for permitting local authorities to put someone on a conservancy who was not necessarily a councillor.
The Conservancy is still subject to planning control by the local planning authority on which elected representatives

sit. Therefore, one has a double check on their activities, via the local planning authority. There is no sense, therefore, in which there is a non-elected person having planning control. He is still barred from total control in that he is still subject to the local authority.
The powers of the advisory committee were clearly the major problem: whether the powers of the Advisory Committee were sufficient to ensure that it was not an empty talking shop, but a body with effective access to power. In Committee we carefully noted that the Advisory Committee had power both to examine all matters material to the affairs of the harbour referred to it from the Conservancy, and also to initiate matters itself and to bring them from the Advisory Committee to the Conservancy.
I believe that was associated with the Medway Harbour Authority Act, and we came to the conclusion that the Advisory Committee had sufficient access to power to prevent the charge that it would be nothing more than a talking shop. We closely examined the points mentioned in the hon. Member's speech.

11.19 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to one or two matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) made an interesting and thoughtful speech. No doubt alternative compositions for the Conservancy Board can be suggested and discussed over and over again, but this process has already gone on for five years and we do not want to be like Aesop's dog which lost its bone in the hope of getting a better bone.
The matter is urgent, because something like chaos prevails in Chichester Harbour at weekends, as anybody acquainted with those waters is aware. My hon. Friend's points will be noted no doubt in another place, but it may be difficult to go back to square one.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT (MANCHESTER AND DISTRICT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill]

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: No doubt the Chichester Harbour Bill is vitally important for certain people, but I consider the problem of unemployment in Manchester to be even more important to the ordinary people. My hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite are concerned about the seeming indifference of the Government's attitude towards unemployment in our area. We are concerned that the Government seem to be returning to a policy of laissez faire, to which my hon. Friends, and particularly those who represent Manchester, are completely opposed.
There is deep concern, disquiet and a sense of insecurity because, whether they intend it or not, the Government seem to be deliberately creating and then sustaining a climate of despair. I was in my constituency last week and I want to mention the comments of three different people. The first I overheard in a barber's shop. A man was talking about the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his comment on the motor industry. This man asked:
Are the Government really determined to increase the pool of unemployment? If they are they going the right way about it, particularly in Manchester.
The second person was a well-respected employer who said that he was concerned about the underlying trend of economic activity in the area. He said:
We are not employing our resources to the full.
The third quotation comes from a councillor in my area, who is an efficient, skilful electrical worker, who is out of work. He uttered what I thought were the saddest words I have heard for a long time when he said:
It makes you afraid of growing old.
It is rather sad to find people who spend a large part of their working lives in dedicated service to their country faced with unemployment in early middle age.
This area was in the forefront of the Industrial Revolution. Already there has been a rundown in our three major

industries of coal, cotton and now steel. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in his place. He worked at Trafford Park and will share my anxieties at the lack of job opportunities in heavy engineering at Trafford Park.
I have been assured in two letters from the Government that they cannot really help. The Minister of State at the Department of Employment said, when I wrote about the employment of older, highly skilled people:
I can assure you that our local officers are alive to the problem of the older age groups and will continue to do everything possible to help them in their search for employment.
It is the word "search" that I want to stress. The fact that they are searching can be directly attributed to some of the acts of this Government.
Secondly, I had a letter from the Department of Trade and Industry dealing with the closure of the Openshaw Works, the final paragraph of which said:
The Government Departments in the Regions will do everything they can to help mitigate the effects of the closure, but other than that it is not a situation in which the Government can intervene.
The Government must bear the responsibility for much of the anxiety in the Manchester area.
Let me illustrate in two ways. Openshaw has faced unemployment. At Irlam steel works the employment of 4,000 people is affected. If this cut-back has taken place, and if the Government were to wash their hands of responsibility, they ought not to have interfered in the capital investment programme of the British Steel Corporation. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, say, "We are not responsible", and wash their hands of it, and then take action which creates a situation of difficulty. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the people of Openshaw and the steel works of Irlam are desperately anxious about this situation now. They are not lazy layabouts. They are people who want to work, and they feel that the Government's decision to interfere in the capital development programme of British Steel Corporation has affected their job prospects.
There were great prospects of employment at Shell Carrington and the factory there. Again, it is action by the present


Government which has caused a cut-back, because of the changing from cash grants to investment allowances, and so the whole of this process of development has been put in jeopardy. The fact that the activity at Shell Carrington is in jeopardy is due entirely to the policy of this Government. They cannot, on the one hand, write to me two separate letters and say they are not responsible when two cases I have quoted reveal that they, and they only, are responsible for the situation.

Mr. Stanley Orme: What is so disturbing about what is happening at Shell Carrington is that it is that type of industry we want in the Greater Manchester area. We want modern, science-based, technological industry because of the decline in heavy engineering. We need that type of development or we shall have an increase in unemployment. Would not my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Carter-Jones: That was percipient of my hon. Friend. He has anticipated my next remarks.
We all of us have read with considerable interest the representations we have had from the North-West Industrial Development Association, which has pinpointed the problem. We live in an area which is old in industrial development but is suffering from the obsolescence of industry and the difficulties of our environment. We need to improve the environment and we shall require a considerable amount of help from the Government, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman can at least give us some hope of some improvement, because the feeling of our constituents at present is one of black despair. If the hon. Gentleman can give us some hope tonight, at least this debate at this late hour will have been worth while.
My hon. Friend just now anticipated my next point, which is to emphasise the lack of growth industries which we need to replace the sadly declining sectors of the older industries, which seem to be in need of rejuvenation and replacement. I wish to quote what was said by the deputation from S.E.L.N.E.C. which went to the Minister of Technology on 24th September. It states that
at present industry is being discouraged from moving to some parts of the conurbation

through the restriction of the granting of industrial development certificates and there is some evidence that even the expansion or renewal of existing firms is also discouraged because of I.D.C. difficulties. This policy seems to be based simply on the fact that unemployment percentages are not shown as high.
There is a clear case for the Department to be more generous in granting industrial development certificates in this area.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I have been impressed by the logic of my hon. Friend's argument. Is he aware that, in view of the real concern and despondency in the City of Manchester about the problem of increasing unemployment and the diminishing job opportunities available for the unemployed people in Manchester, he will have the support of all reasonable people in Manchester in his demand, and the demand of the S.E.L.N.E.C. local authorities, for more industrial development certificates to allow firms to expand and develop in the area?

Mr. Carter-Jones: I agree completely. However, I was hoping that a request for more industrial development certificates would be my minimum request.
I turn to the possibilities of having our area treated more favourably not only from an I.D.C. point of view but as an intermediate area to stimulate the prospects of employment and expansion. The trouble is that employment in our area is frequently masked because large numbers of people tend to go to the South-East. The attractions of the South-East are very pleasant for people of an area which has not had as much capital injected into it as it should have had. In this connection we should consider the situation regarding industrial premises built before 1914 in the Manchester area. Sixty per cent. of the industrial premises in Salford were built before 1914. Ninety per cent. of them were built before 1939. This highlights the situation. Salford is in many ways typical of the area. Only vast injections of capital into the area can help.
To sum up, I wish to quote the recommendations of the North-West Industrial Development Association to the Minister when its representatives called to see him. They made five points. First, there is a tremendous need for a drastic improvement in the investment of social and industrial capital in the region. Many of


our schools are out of date. We have a large number of old properties. There is a great need to increase school building and road building and to stimulate industrial development.
Secondly, at the meeting with the Minister the association pointed out by that industrial building grants of at least 35 per cent. should be made available throughout our region. This would be a positive injection of capital into our area.
Thirdly, because of the past ravages of the Industrial Revolution, there is need for some of the old dereliction caused by past industrial activities to be swept away. This will require not less than a 100 per cent. grant. This sort of task cannot possibly be faced by a local authority tackling housing problems and other social and welfare problems. The Government must be very generous if they mean to sustain their argument about creating a better environment. We are the people who need their support.
Fourthly, industrial development certificates must be made more readily available for factory building in all parts of the North-West, including Manchester and district.
Finally, I urge the Minister to consider giving intermediate area status to the remainder of our region outside the present development areas. What worries us is that the growth in our area seems to be in unemployment, in squalor and in despair. Will the hon. Gentleman tonight give us some hope of growth in the economic sector?

11.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I have listened with interest to the exposition of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), and although he will not expect me to agree with everything he said, he argued his case forcibly. I would be inclined to agree with what he said about a growth in squalor and unemployment, but it started many years before June of last year. If he accepts that, we are at one.
I am particularly glad to have this opportunity of speaking tonight on the subject of unemployment in the Manchester district because I know that the hon. Member's concern about the position there is shared by several other hon. Members whose constituencies lie in and

around Manchester. I need hardly assure hon. Members that Ministers, certainly myself, are well seized of the features that currently characterise the Manchester travel-to-work area. We fully recognise that the area has felt the impact of redundancies, closures, and general unemployment during the past 12 months; and I know that closures and cut-backs have resulted in major redundancies in a variety of industries.
Notwithstanding the admitted problems of obsolescence in Manchester, I fully appreciate that the heavy loss of jobs in Trafford Park—12,000 during the past 4 years, largely due to G.E.C.-A.E.I. merger reorganisatoin—together with other major redundancies, and the recently announced B.S.C. closure at Irlam cause particular anxiety.

Mr. Orme: What worries us is that Trafford Park is becoming a vast warehouse for storing stuff rather than a place for people to work.

Mr. Grant: I will have another word about Trafford Park in a moment if I have time.
Job losses have a direct impact on individual lives and the well-being of a community. However, the closures that have taken place in industries generally have been necessitated by the urgent need to rationalise production, and in some instances, for example, the aircraft industry, by a recession in world markets. Unfortunately, the necessity for rationalisation in many instances reflects the cost inflation which has been widespread throughout our economy, and is therefore not confined to the Manchester area. The previous Government said that there would be need for rationalisation.
Regarding the B.S.C. closure at Irlam, I fully recognise the effect that this will have. However, it must be emphasised that closure of the Irlam plant will be in two stages, and that the second stage involving 2,392 workers is not planned to take place until 1973. No timing for the first stage, involving 1,961 workers, has been announced so that further discussion can take place with the trade unions. Furthermore, it should also be remembered that figures announced in connection with the steel closures relate to job losses. Actual redundancies are likely to be less, and will be spread over a period. There will also be natural wastage, and


B.S.C. intends redeploying men wherever possible. The immediate effect on unemployment in the areas concerned will not perhaps be so serious as it appears at first sight, and I need hardly add that the full resources of the Department of Employment will be available to help those who will in due course have to seek other jobs. I mention this not to minimise the difficulties, but to tell people to cheer up a little bit and not to get too depressed.
On the question of unemployment, it is true that the percentage rate for total registered unemployed in Manchester has risen this year from 2·3 per cent. in January to 3 per cent. in April; and the corresponding male percentage rate has risen from 3·5 per cent to 4·4 per cent. But I must point out that the current rate for Manchester is below that of the national average, 3·4 per cent., and well below that for the North-West Region of 3·8 per cent. So Manchester is not so badly off. Manchester must look at the situation in the light of the whole of the area and the whole of the country.
What I find of greater significance, however, is that the trend for both the total and male percentage rates has risen steadily since April, 1966—which is hardly a tribute to the previous four years of the Labour Administration.
A word about industrial development certificates. There appears to be considerable misunderstanding about the Government's policy in this field. We have repeatedly declared our belief that the needs of the assisted areas must remain paramount in regard to the siting of industry involving substantial numbers of new jobs. Within the requirements of this policy, however, my Department views as sympathetically as possible applications for rehousing and modernisation schemes, and normal expansion although it is sometimes necessary to look critically at applications in the Manchester area, where unemployment rates have been generally below the national average. But, as I said in my letter to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) in recognition of the problems of the Trafford Park Industrial Estate, the I.D.C. control will continue to be used with a sensitivity to local needs. No application has in fact been refused there in recent years.
This indicates the point that while the Government regard the I.D.C. weapon as an essential feature in the armoury of regional policy, nevertheless we intend to operate it as flexibly as possible.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: What about intermediate area status?

Mr. Grant: I am coming to that point now. As hon. Members are aware the Government have carefully reviewed the coverage of the development and intermediate areas. Whilst we recognise the problems caused in parts of the North West, including Manchester, by the rundown of older industries, rationalisation and closures, the fact remains that other areas have much greater problems of heavy and persistent unemployment.
I know that the area was disappointed with the previous Administration for not giving it intermediate area status, but our review has not indicated that we have to take a different view from that of the previous Administration for these reasons. Because the supply of mobile industry is limited at present it is our view that priority must be given to the areas of greatest employment need, for example, in West Scotland, 57,000 6·2 per cent.; Tyneside and Wearside 34,000, 5·9 per cent. It must be right to give priority to such areas. Whilst the Government do not intend to make frequent change in the boundaries of assisted areas, the situation will be kept under constant review so that areas no longer in need of assistance no longer benefit at the expense of those which do.
What industry needs more than anything is a period of stability, where it can know exactly what the plans are for assisted areas, rather than to have a situation that is chopping and changing all the time. We have undertaken to keep this coverage under constant review.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the question about this particular area. It is the underlying trend in this area that is causing anxiety. Unless action is taken quickly, we will have an acceleration of this rate and will end up as a severely depressed area.

Mr. Grant: I understand that. That is precisely why I said that we shall keep the position under constant review. But I cannot accept that the figures or the


underlying trends at the moment justify a change of status. But we shall keep it under constant review for that very reason.
As to the future, I do not share the pessimistic views which have been expressed in the House tonight. Certainly, the current unemployment situation gives no cause for complacency, but the position must be seen in perspective. The fact remains that, despite heavy job losses during the last few years, the unemployment figures for the area have demonstrated Manchester's considerable resilience in absorbing these problems, compared with some other areas. Manchester's industries are well diversified, and I know that retirement and migration outwards to some extent have eased some of the difficulties. There is, too, extensive travelling to work throughout the area, greatly assisted by good communications, and this fact alone should assist with the problems of Irlam as well.
Whilst the questions of obsolescence and slum clearance are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I think it right to emphasise that the Government are giving high priority to tackling these problems, and every encouragement is given to local authorities to avail themselves of Government grants for derelict land clearance. As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment visited the North-West Region on 7th May, and met representatives of all the local authorities, including Manchester, in order to consider their problems at first hand.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman had better come again. They are different.

Mr. Grant: If they have changed in the last few days, undoubtedly we shall come again. However, that is not my evidence.
It is the Government's firm view that the Manchester district, in common with other areas of the country, should benefit from our policies to restore stable growth to the national economy. The district

has a wide diversification of industry and commerce, and a tradition of enterprise and sturdy self-help which will enable it to seize and develop the opportunities which will arise in the new atmosphere of business confidence which we are seeking to generate. Hon. Members opposite do no good by spreading tales of woe and misery. They do nothing to help their own constituents.
We have heard a reference to one hon. Member's conversations in a barber's shop. I much prefer to study the April newsletter issued by the North-West Industrial Development Association. This indicated that industry had welcomed the Budget proposals together with the cut in the Bank Rate and the continued strength of the balance of payments. This, it felt, would all help business confidence. At the same time it rightly pointed out that the impact of the measures would take time to work through the economy, and this is the thought I would commend to hon. Members, who cannot expect miracles to be wrought overnight.

Mr. Kaufman: At a stroke.

Mr. Grant: I am glad that the hon. Member for Eccles raised this subject tonight. He has enabled me to make two points: that the problems of Manchester did not start in June of last year, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, but a very long time ago; and, secondly, that the problems are by no means as bad as those of some other parts of the country.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister come to Manchester to see the position for himself?

Mr. Grant: I shall be only too delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes to Twelve o'clock.